DOCSLIB.ORG

PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE DATA SETS Los Angeles County

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE DATA SETS Los Angeles County PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE DATA SETS Los Angeles County Table of Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 3 Population ....................................................................................................................... 4 2017 Population Estimate by Race/Ethnicity................................................................ 5 Population Estimates and Projections by Race/Ethnicity ............................................. 6 2017 Population Estimate by Age ................................................................................ 7 Population Estimates and Projections by Age.............................................................. 8 Crimes ............................................................................................................................. 9 2017 Reported Violent Crimes ................................................................................... 10 2017 Reported Property Crimes ................................................................................ 10 Reported Crimes, 2011 – 2017 .................................................................................. 11 Arrests ........................................................................................................................... 12 Number of Arrests for Different Types of Crimes ....................................................... 13 Number of Arrests by Race/Ethnicity ......................................................................... 14 2017 Arrests by Race/Ethnicity .................................................................................. 14 Number of Arrests by Age .......................................................................................... 15 2017 Arrests by Age .................................................................................................. 15 Jails ............................................................................................................................... 16 Average Daily Population of Jail Inmates ................................................................... 16 Proportion of Male and Female Inmates .................................................................... 17 Proportion of Sentenced and Unsentenced Inmates .................................................. 17 2 Los Angeles County Introduction This document presents a sample of demographic and criminological information from publicly accessible data files. In addition to presenting summaries of information contained in the files, links to official publications and datasets have been provided. This summary is not intended to be a comprehensive listing of publicly accessible files. Relevant data are available from a number of sources and can be accessed online and through other mechanisms. 3 Los Angeles County Population: 10,283,729 This section presents information on the demographic characteristics of the population in Los Angeles County. These data come from the California Department of Finance’s E-4: Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, 2011-2018 with 2010 Census Benchmark, May 2018 report (http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-4/2010-18/). Population Estimates 2011 - 2018 10,600,000 10,400,000 10,283,729 10,231,271 10,180,169 10,200,000 10,149,661 10,088,458 10,020,599 10,000,000 9,949,794 9,871,802 9,800,000 9,600,000 9,400,000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 4 Los Angeles County The information on the race/ethnicity composition of the Los Angeles County’s population comes from the California Department of Finance’s P-1: State Population Projections (2010-2060) by Race/Ethnicity - Hispanic Combined, January 2018 report (http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Projections/). 2017 Population Estimate by Race/Ethnicity White Hispanic (any race) 26.7% 48.8% White Black American Indian Native Alaskan Black Asian 7.9% Native Hawaiian American Indian Pacific Islander Native Alaskan Multi-Racial (2 or 0.2% more races) Asian Hispanic (any race) 14.1% Multi-Racial (2 or Native Hawaiian more races) Pacific Islander 2.0% 0.2% 5 Los Angeles County Population Estimates and Projections by Race/Ethnicity Race/Ethnicity Estimates Projections Recodeᵃ 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2020 2030 White 2,746,712 2,752,583 2,750,607 2,751,235 2,748,525 2,740,584 2,745,583 2,751,309 2,762,923 2,817,499 Black 824,059 826,020 824,885 823,942 820,790 815,775 814,075 812,171 808,205 782,769 AIAN 19,507 19,652 19,730 19,867 19,966 20,031 20,276 20,498 20,992 22,974 Asian 1,354,346 1,370,453 1,387,233 1,405,107 1,422,857 1,435,853 1,447,696 1,459,194 1,481,610 1,571,900 NHPI 23,281 23,522 23,731 23,953 24,121 24,179 24,358 24,541 24,858 26,085 MR 185,503 189,778 193,674 197,482 200,760 203,639 207,479 211,310 218,828 252,930 Hispanic (any race) 4,748,122 4,808,242 4,856,423 4,903,024 4,942,463 4,975,042 5,012,325 5,048,792 5,117,620 5,394,457 AIAN = American Indian/Alaska Native NHPI = Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander MR = Multi-Racial 6 Los Angeles County The information on the race/ethnicity and age composition of the Los Angeles County’s population comes from the California Department of Finance’s P-2: County Population Projections (2010-2060) by Age, May 2018 report (http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Projections/). 2017 Population Estimate by Age 80-89 90+ 2.8% 0.7% 70-79 0-9 0-9 5.6% 12.4% 10-19 60-69 20-29 10.1% 10-19 30-39 13.1% 40-49 50-59 50-59 13.1% 60-69 20-29 70-79 14.4% 80-89 40-49 90+ 13.7% 30-39 13.9% 7 Los Angeles County Population Estimates and Projections by Age Estimates Projections Population 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2020 2030 0-9 1,280,624 1,285,346 1,288,851 1,290,701 1,289,098 1,280,561 1,271,207 1,260,019 1,239,976 1,087,570 10-19 1,428,070 1,415,480 1,396,841 1,380,197 1,363,563 1,349,859 1,345,149 1,343,778 1,336,845 1,309,233 20-29 1,493,903 1,487,536 1,482,751 1,479,043 1,475,468 1,477,486 1,482,452 1,488,411 1,497,018 1,429,521 30-39 1,429,158 1,438,177 1,445,486 1,450,553 1,446,449 1,439,155 1,430,791 1,417,655 1,380,843 1,370,214 40-49 1,428,357 1,433,531 1,428,056 1,422,544 1,417,900 1,412,388 1,410,802 1,408,817 1,398,830 1,364,013 50-59 1,257,783 1,285,999 1,310,286 1,329,924 1,341,734 1,344,187 1,348,703 1,352,521 1,371,795 1,365,830 60-69 821,313 859,358 895,079 935,001 977,882 1,013,579 1,042,439 1,072,601 1,134,086 1,287,063 70-79 449,158 465,249 483,567 503,697 524,240 544,841 576,417 608,742 675,290 1,008,191 80-89 257,871 262,125 266,302 271,504 277,543 282,392 288,628 295,968 313,254 516,444 90+ 55,293 57,449 59,064 61,446 65,605 70,655 75,204 79,303 87,099 130,535 8 Los Angeles County Crimes This section presents information on the number and type of reported crimes in Los Angeles County. The information summarized in this section comes from the California Department of Justice’s Crime and Clearance Data 1985-2017 file (https://openjustice.doj.ca.gov/data), and also appears in the annual Crime in California publication (https://oag.ca.gov/cjsc/pubs). This section includes: charts and tables summarizing offense categories. 2017 Reported Crimes Violent 19% Violent Property Property 81% 9 Los Angeles County 2017 Reported Violent Crimes Homicide Rape 1.0% 7.2% Homicide Rape Robbery 35.2% Robbery Aggravated Assault Aggravated 56.7% Assault 2017 Reported Property Crimes Burglary Burglary 18.9% Motor Vehicle Theft Motor Vehicle Theft Larceny- Larceny- 19.1% Theft Theft 62.1% 10 Los Angeles County Reported Crimes, 2011 – 2017 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Violent 46,116 44,556 40,384 42,725 50,466 56,351 59,924 Homicide 569 600 543 526 592 622 580 Rape 1,904 1,976 1,752 2,327 3,913 4,153 4,302 Robbery 19,905 18,923 16,783 16,123 17,682 20,147 21,089 Aggravated Assault 23,738 23,057 21,306 23,804 28,279 31,429 33,953 Property 228,174 232,266 228,419 218,387 240,050 252,224 248,714 Burglary 49,336 49,107 48,172 44,011 45,396 46,918 46,972 Motor Vehicle Theft 40,482 40,555 38,935 37,325 43,889 47,496 47,406 Larceny-Theft 138,356 142,604 141,312 137,051 150,765 157,810 154,336 11 Los Angeles County Arrests This section presents information on the number of arrests made by reporting law enforcement agencies in Los Angeles County. The information summarized in this section includes the number of arrests for different types of offenses, the race/ethnicity of arrestees, and the ages of arrestees. Information reported in this section comes from the California Department of Justice’s 10 Year Arrest Data 2008-2017 file (https://openjustice.doj.ca.gov/data), and also appears in the annual Crime in California publication (https://oag.ca.gov/cjsc/pubs). Two important caveats to keep in mind: • the number of arrests represent the number of arrests made, not the number of individuals arrested (a person can be arrested more than one time) • the reported arrest offense is the most serious offense (the one with the most severe possible sanction). 12 Los Angeles County Number of Arrests for Different Types of Crimes 2013 – 2017 200,000 190,044 188,185 181,597 177,676 180,000 171,897 160,000 140,000 120,000 110,536 109,136 100,000 80,000 75,433 75,131 75,501 60,000 40,000 20,000 2,568 2,189 1,277 863 614 - 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total Felony Total Misdemeanor Total Status 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total Felony 110,536 109,136 75,433 75,131 75,501 Violent 27,159 28,251 28,194 27,804 28,746 Property 27,374 24,786 19,041 19,914 20,213 Drug 35,972 36,372 9,753 8,970 7,302
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Gangs Beyond Borders
    Gangs Beyond Borders California and the Fight Against Transnational Organized Crime March 2014 Kamala D. Harris California Attorney General Gangs Beyond Borders California and the Fight Against Transnational Organized Crime March 2014 Kamala D. Harris California Attorney General Message from the Attorney General California is a leader for international commerce. In close proximity to Latin America and Canada, we are a state laced with large ports and a vast interstate system. California is also leading the way in economic development and job creation. And the Golden State is home to the digital and innovation economies reshaping how the world does business. But these same features that benefit California also make the state a coveted place of operation for transnational criminal organizations. As an international hub, more narcotics, weapons and humans are trafficked in and out of California than any other state. The size and strength of California’s economy make our businesses, financial institutions and communities lucrative targets for transnational criminal activity. Finally, transnational criminal organizations are relying increasingly on cybercrime as a source of funds – which means they are frequently targeting, and illicitly using, the digital tools and content developed in our state. The term “transnational organized crime” refers to a range of criminal activity perpetrated by groups whose origins often lie outside of the United States but whose operations cross international borders. Whether it is a drug cartel originating from Mexico or a cybercrime group out of Eastern Europe, the operations of transnational criminal organizations threaten the safety, health and economic wellbeing of all Americans, and particularly Californians.
    [Show full text]
  • Performance Audit of San Diego Police Department's Data Analysis
    PERFORMANCE AUDIT OF THE SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT’S DATA ANALYSIS SDPD Can Improve Operational Data Analysis and Procedures for Accepting Citizen Complaints Office of the City Auditor City of San Diego September 2020 Report Highlights Performance Audit of SDPD’s Data Analysis SDPD Can Improve Operational Data Analysis and Procedures for Accepting Citizen Complaints Why OCA Did This Study The San Diego Police Department’s (SDPD) mission is to maintain public safety by providing the highest quality police services to all of the City’s communities. SDPD is the largest General Fund department, accounting for a third of both funds and employees. However, SDPD also has a low officer-to-resident ratio compared to other major city police departments. Therefore, complete and accurate data collection, analysis, and reporting are essential to monitoring SDPD’s activities and ensuring SDPD delivers the most efficient, effective, and equitable services possible to promote the well-being of the community. What OCA Found Finding 1: We found that SDPD has policies and procedures, What OCA Recommends system controls, supervisory review, and outside agency review to SDPD largely follows best practices regarding crime help ensure reported crime and Racial and Identity Profiling Act reporting, crime data analysis, and procedures for filing (RIPA) data is complete, reliable, and secure. However, we found complaints against officers. We identified a few ways that there may be some minor variations in the completeness of the SDPD could further improve its policies and procedures to data reported by officers. ensure that it is maximizing the quality of its data, use of that data for evidence-based decision making, and ensuring Finding 2: We found that SDPD can better use its existing data to all potential complaints against officers are accepted.
    [Show full text]
  • 2017 Ada Update on Service Animal Rules
    2017 ADA UPDATE ON SERVICE ANIMAL RULES The California Hotel & Lodging Association receives many questions regarding the rights and obligations of lodging establishments with respect to service animals. This document contains CHLA’s updated discussion of this topic. First, there has been a significant change regarding California law related to service animals. This change, which is discussed below, will make it easier for lodging operators to deal with guests who claim that their pets are service animals. Here are the basics of California law as it relates to service animals: • There was a time when the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, which administers California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (Act), took the position that the Act applied to the lodging industry. At that time, there was concern that lodging operators would have to comply with the more stringent requirements of the Act: (1) it is not limited to dogs— depending on the circumstances, the FEHA protects other types of animals and treats them as service animals; and (2) it provides protections for people who use “comfort” and “companion” animals. Contrary to the Department’s earlier position, however, CHLA was recently advised that the Act only applies to homes, condos, and apartments, and that it does not apply to hotels! • It is important for lodging operators to bear in mind that although the 2011 revisions to the ADA rules regarding service animals expressly state that (1) only dogs qualify as service animals,1 and that (2) “comfort” and “companion” dogs are not service animals,2 if a local jurisdiction in California has broader, more stringent rules than the ADA, the local rules must be complied with.
    [Show full text]
  • California Crime Rise, the W
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 47 | Issue 6 Article 13 1957 California Crime Rise, The W. H. Parker Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation W. H. Parker, California Crime Rise, The, 47 J. Crim. L. Criminology & Police Sci. 721 (1956-1957) This Criminology is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. THE CALIFORNIA CRIME RISE W. H. PARKER The author was appointed Chief of Police for the City of Los Angeles in August, 1950, and during his term in office has continued to rise in prominence both for his outstanding administration and progressive police policies and for his active partici- pation in various organizations interested in law enforcement throughout the country. Chief Parker has risen through the ranks in the Los Angeles Police Department and is a member of the California State Bar. During World War II he served in the Military Government Branch of the armed forces. His present paper is based upon an address given at the 36th Annual Conference of the Peace Officers Association of the State of California in May, 1956.-EDITOR. During the first nine months of 1956 major crime increased in the City of Los Angeles more than 35 % over the same period last year.
    [Show full text]
  • California Urban Crime Declined in 2020 Amid Social and Economic
    CALIFORNIA URBAN CRIME DECLINED IN 2020 AMID SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC UPHEAVAL Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice Mike Males, Ph.D., Senior Research Fellow Maureen Washburn, Policy Analyst June 2021 Research Report Introduction In 2020, a year defined by the COVID-19 pandemic, the crime rate in California’s 72 largest cities declined by an average of 7 percent, falling to a historic low level (FBI, 2021). From 2019 to 2020, 48 cities showed declines in Part I violent and property felonies, while 24 showed increases. The 2020 urban crime decline follows a decade of generally falling property and violent crime rates. These declines coincided with monumental criminal justice reforms that have lessened penalties for low-level offenses and reduced prison and jail populations (see Figure 1). Though urban crime declined overall in 2020, some specific crime types increased while others fell. As in much of the country, California’s urban areas experienced a significant increase in homicide (+34 percent). They also saw a rise in aggravated assault (+10 percent) and motor vehicle theft (+10 percent) along with declines in robbery (-15 percent) and theft (-16 percent). Preliminary 2021 data point to a continued decline in overall crime, with increases continuing in homicide, assault, and motor vehicle theft. An examination of national crime data, local economic indicators, local COVID-19 infection rates, and select murder and domestic violence statistics suggests that the pandemic likely influenced crime. Figure 1. California urban crime rates*, 2010 through 2020 3,500 3,000 -14% 2,500 -16% 2,000 Public Safety Proposition 47 Proposition 57 1,500 Realignment 1,000 500 -3% 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Part I Violent Property Sources: FBI (2021); DOF (2021).
    [Show full text]
  • California's 2019 Urban Crime Rate Falls to Record Low Amid Large-Scale
    CALIFORNIA’S 2019 URBAN CRIME RATE FALLS TO RECORD LOW AMID LARGE-SCALE JUSTICE REFORM Mike Males, Ph.D., Senior Research Fellow Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice May 2020 Fact Sheet In the first six months of 2019, violent and property crime rates reached record low levels in 69 California cities1 with populations of 100,000 or more (a combined population of over 15 million), falling 10.4 percent compared to the first half of 2010 (FBI, 2020; DOF, 2020; DOJ, 2020).2 During this ten-year period, the state implemented several large-scale criminal justice reforms, including reduced penalties for certain low-level offenses and expanded parole opportunities for those in state prison (AB 109, 2011; Prop 47, 2014; Prop 57, 2016). • California’s urban crime rate reached a record low in early 2019, falling slightly from early 2018 levels. Compared to the first six months of 2018, January through June 2019 saw modest declines in California’s urban violent crime rate (down 2.6 percent) and property crime rate (down 0.8 percent). During this period, California cities reported decreases in all forms of crime except homicide and larceny-theft, with the largest declines in the motor vehicle theft rate (down 9.1 percent) and burglary rate (down 5.5 percent). • The crime rate declined by 10.4 percent from the first half of 2010 to the first half of 2019. California’s urban crime rate declined rapidly through the 1990s and much of the 2000s (see Appendix A). In recent years, these declines have slowed and rates now hover at historically low levels.
    [Show full text]
  • 2015 Report on the Status of Women and Girls in Kern County
    1 2015 Report on the Status of Women and Girls in Kern County Commissioned by: Kern Community Foundation, Women’s and Girls’ Fund United Way of Kern County, Women’s Leadership Council Prepared by: Mount Saint Mary’s University, Los Angeles Table of Contents Report Highlights 4 Demographics 5 Employment and Earnings 18 Education 31 Poverty 45 Health 61 Veterans 78 Safety 97 Leadership 114 About the Authors 124 Acknowledgments 125 2 Report on the Status of Women and Girls in Kern County: An Introduction The 2015 Report on the Status of Women and Girls in Kern County offers a look at how Kern’s females are faring in key areas vital to their well being. This report is a compilation of current research on issues and trends that impact the lives of the nearly 425,000 women and girls who live within the County. Our intent is to provide a snapshot of where women are succeeding, where opportunities are most evident, and where obstacles are preventing women from fully contributing to Kern County’s economic, social and cultural growth. This report offers benchmarks that can be used by local leaders to measure future progress in quality-of-life issues throughout the County. The findings from this report are certainly most relevant to Kern County’s female population. Yet it’s important to keep in mind that this research also illustrates how a better quality of life for Kern’s women and girls means a better quality of life for everyone. When all contribute to the success of a community — and when opportunities are available to all — communities prosper.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 6: Other Safety Issues
    TECHNICAL BACKGROUND REPORT to the 2003 SAFETY ELEMENT CITY of GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA CHAPTER 6: OTHER SAFETY ISSUES 6.1 Introduction This chapter covers safety issues that did not fit the theme of the previous chapters, but that nevertheless require discussion. These are also safety issues that the State does not require to be covered in Safety Elements, but that the City of Glendale considers of sufficient importance as to be included in its Safety Element. Specifically, issues covered herein include terrorism and civil unrest, crime, major accident response, dangerous plants and animals, and disease and vector control. The data used in this study are based entirely on openly published information. No confidential information was sought or obtained, nor was any used. 6.2 Terrorism and Civil Unrest 6.2.1 Definitions Webster’s dictionary defines terrorism as the “use of force or threats to demoralize, intimidate, and subjugate, especially as a political weapon or policy.” Terrorists rely on stealth and surprise to accomplish their means and to cause a feeling of uncertainty and hopelessness. The targets chosen are typically high-profile places that are likely to attract the most public attention, usually as a result of media coverage. This assures that the terrorist group’s cause or objective becomes known. This is also why terrorist groups often issue public announcements taking responsibility for their actions. In an effort to cause as much damage as possible, terrorists may use or threaten to use nuclear, biological or chemical substances. These are referred to as Weapons of Mass Destruction, or WMDs. While a terrorist attack is typically meant to generate as much publicity as possible, the planning and delivery phases of the attack need to be conducted in secrecy.
    [Show full text]
  • Incarceration and Crime: Evidence from California's Public
    599732ANN The Annals of the American AcademyIncarceration and Crime research-article2015 Recent reforms in California caused a sharp and per- manent reduction in the state’s incarceration rate. We evaluate the effects of that incarceration decline on local crime rates. Our analysis exploits the large varia- tion across California counties in the effect of this reform on county-specific prison incarceration rates. We find very little evidence that the large reduction in California incarceration had an effect on violent crime, and modest evidence of effects on property crime, auto theft in particular. These effects are considerably Incarceration smaller than existing estimates based on panel data for periods of time when the U.S. incarceration rate was considerably lower. We corroborate these cross-county and Crime: results with a synthetic-cohort analysis of state crime rates in California. The statewide analysis confirms our Evidence from findings from the county-level analysis. In line with with previous research, the results from this study sup- port the hypothesis of a crime-prison effect that dimin- California’s ishes with increased reliance on incarceration. Public Safety Keywords: crime; incapacitation; incarceration; prison; Realignment Realignment; reform Reform ince the 1970s, the United States has expe- Srienced a pronounced increase in its incar- ceration rate. Between 1975 and 2007, the U.S. Magnus Lofstrom is a senior research fellow at PPIC. By His areas of expertise include economics of crime, immi- MAGNUS LOFSTROM gration, and entrepreneurship. His recent work exam- and ines crime trends in California, public safety realignment STEVEN RAPHAEL recidivism, and California’s jail capacity and construc- tion needs.
    [Show full text]
  • PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE DATA SETS Kern County
    PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE DATA SETS Kern County Table of Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 Population ....................................................................................................................... 2 2017 Population Estimate by Race/Ethnicity................................................................ 3 2017 Population Estimates and Projections by Race/Ethnicity .................................... 4 2017 Population Estimate by Age ................................................................................ 5 Population Estimates and Projections by Age.............................................................. 6 Crimes ............................................................................................................................. 7 2017 Reported Violent Crimes ..................................................................................... 8 2017 Reported Property Crimes .................................................................................. 8 Reported Crimes, 2011 – 2017 .................................................................................... 9 Arrests ........................................................................................................................... 10 Number of Arrests for Different Types of Offenses .................................................... 11 Number of Arrests by Race/Ethnicity ........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Violence Prevention Coalition of Greater Los Angeles a Project of Community Partners®
    Violence Prevention Coalition of Greater Los Angeles A Project of Community Partners® FACT SHEET: Violence in Los Angeles County Overall In 2005, there were 66,350 violent crimes reported in Los Angeles County, including 1,068 homicides, 2,384 forcible rapes, 26,694 robberies, and 36,204 aggravated assaults. Los Angeles Almanac, 2006. In LA County, the number of gun deaths in 2004 by race was highest for Latinos (514), followed by African Americans (338) and Caucasians (228). California Department of Vital Statistics, 2004. Gangs account for approximately 43% of all homicides in Los Angeles County. Of the 1038 homicides in 2004, 454 were gang-related. “Review of Homicide Crime Statistics,” Criminal Justice Center, 2005. Hate Crimes Of the 502 crimes reported in 2004, 285 were racially based, 130 involved sexual orientation, 81 were motivated by religion, four related to gender, and two involved disability. “Hate Crime in California,” California Office of Attorney General, 2005. 88% of the suspects of hate crimes in 2004 were male and of diverse cultural backgrounds. Juveniles comprised of 34% of the suspects. LA County Commission on Human Relations, 2005. Overall 53% of hate crimes committed in 2004 were of a violent nature. Homophobic and anti-transgender hate crimes were the most likely to be of a violent nature, followed by racial hate crimes. Religious hate crimes were much less likely to be violent. LA County Commission on Human Relations, 2005. Child Abuse In 2002, there were 161,642 child abuse and neglect referrals to DCFS in LA County. Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services, 2006.
    [Show full text]
  • July 2019 the Effect of Sentencing Reform on Crime Rates: Evidence from California's Proposition 47 Patricio Dominguez-Rivera
    July 2019 The Effect of Sentencing Reform on Crime Rates: Evidence from California’s Proposition 47 Patricio Dominguez-Rivera Inter-American Development Bank [email protected] Magnus Lofstrom Public Policy Institute of California [email protected] Steven Raphael Goldman School of Public Policy University of California, Berkeley [email protected] Abstract We evaluate whether California’s state proposition 47 impacted state violent and property crime rates. Passed by the voters in November 2014, the proposition redefined many less serious property and drug offenses that in the past could be charged as either a felony or misdemeanor to straight misdemeanors. The proposition caused a sudden and sizable decline in county jail populations, a moderate decline in the state prison population, a decrease in arrests for property and drug offenses, and a wave of legal petitions filed for retroactive resentencing and reclassification of prior convictions. We make use of multiple strategies to estimate the effect of the proposition, including state-level synthetic cohort analysis, within-state event study estimates based on state-level monthly time series, and a cross-county analysis of changes in county-level crime rates that exploit heterogeneity in the effects of the proposition on local criminal justice practices. We find little evidence of an impact on violent crime rates in the state. Once changes in offense definitions and reporting practices in key agencies are accounted for, violent crime in California is roughly at pre-proposition levels and generally lower than the levels that existed in 2010 prior to a wave major reforms to the state’s criminal justice system.
    [Show full text]