Cited by 20Criminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisCriminal Justice and PenologyEducation Discipline and Inequality

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effect of sentencing reform on racial and ethnic disparities in involvement with the criminal justice system: The case of California's proposition 47

Lofstrom, Magnus, Martin, Brandon, Raphael, Steven·2020·Criminology & Public Policy

Abstract

We analyze the disparate effects of a recent California sentencing reform on the arrest, booking, and incarceration rates experienced by California residents from different racial and ethnic groups. In November 2014, California voters passed state Proposition 47 that redefined a series of felony and “wobbler” offenses (offenses that can be charged as either a felony or misdemeanor) as straight misdemeanors, causing an immediate 15% decline in total drug arrests, an approximate 20% decline in total property crime arrests, and shifts in the composition of arrests away from felonies towards misdemeanors. Using microdata on the universe of arrests in the state in conjunction with demographic data from the American Community Survey, we document a substantial narrowing in interracial differences in overall arrest rates and arrest rates by offense type, with very large declines in the interracial arrest rate gaps for felony drug offenses. We see declines in bookings rates for all groups (conditional on being arrested), though we find a larger decrease for white arrestees. This relatively greater decline for white arrests is largely explained by differences in the distribution of arrests across recorded offenses. Despite the widening of racial gaps in the conditional booking rate, we observe substantial declines in overall booked arrests that are larger for African Americans and Hispanics relative to Whites and Asians. For some offenses (felony drug offenses), interracial disparities in jail booking rates narrow by nearly half. Finally, we use data from the American Community Survey to analyze changes in the proportion incarcerated on any given day and how these changes vary by race and ethnicity. For these results, we present trends for the time period spanning the larger set of policy reforms that have been implemented in the state since 2011. We observe sizable declines in the overall incarceration rate for African Americans, with the largest declines observed for African American males. The one quarter decline in total correctional populations in the state coincided with sizable narrowing in interracial differences in incarceration rates.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1745-9133.12527

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Research is already showing reductions in disproportionality associated with one California policy that recategorized some drug and property offenses as less serious misdemeanors.

    “Research is already showing reductions in disproportionality associated with one California policy that recategorized some drug and property offenses as less serious misdemeanors (Lofstrom et al., 2020; MacDonald & Raphael, 2020).”

    From A call to dismantle systemic racism in criminal legal systems. (2022) · cites this paper as Lofstrom et al., 2020

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 23

  1. 10.1111/1745-9133.12378 · DOI
  2. Bird M., 2016, Realignment and recidivism, The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1, 176, 10.1177/0002716215603319 · DOI
  3. California Judicial Council, 2016, Prop 47 frequently asked questions: Updated November 2016
  4. Carson A. E. &Anderson E.(2016).Prisoners in 2015(Bulletin NCJ 250229).Washington DC:U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics.
  5. Dominguez Rivera P. Lofstrom M. &Raphael S.(2019).The effect of sentencing reform on crime rates: Evidence from California's Proposition 47. University of California Berkeley Working Paper. · DOI
  6. Donnelly E. A., 2018, The downstream effects of bail and pretrial detention on racial disparities in incarceration, Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 108, 775
  7. Feigenberg B. &Miller C.(2018).Racial divisions and criminal jusice: Evidence from southern state courts. University of California Berkeley Working Paper. · DOI
  8. Heaton P., 2017, The downstream consequences of misdemeanor pretrial detention, Stanford Law Review, 69, 711
  9. 10.2307/2094764 · DOI
  10. Kaeble D. Maruschak L. &Bonczar T. P.(2015).Probation and parole in the United States 2014(Bulletin NCJ 249057).Washington DC:U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics.
  11. 10.1111/1745-9133.12203 · DOI
  12. 10.1177/0002716215599732 · DOI
  13. 10.2105/AJPH.2018.304445 · DOI
  14. Minton T. D. &Zeng Z.(2015)Jail inmates at midyear 2014(Bulletin NCJ 248629). U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics.
  15. 10.4159/9780674286658 · DOI
  16. Petersilia J., 2014, California prison downsizing and its impact on local criminal justice systems, Harvard Law & Policy Review, 8, 327
  17. 10.1086/701068 · DOI
  18. Raphael S., 2013, Why are so many Americans in prison?
  19. 10.1086/677255 · DOI
  20. 10.1086/449253 · DOI
  21. 10.1111/1745-9133.12199 · DOI
  22. 10.1093/oso/9780195077209.001.0001 · DOI
  23. Truman J. L. &Morgan R. E.(2016).Criminal victimization 2015(Bulletin NCJ 250180).Washington DC:U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

  • A call to dismantle systemic racism in criminal legal systems.

    Najdowski, C. J., & Stevenson, M. C. (2022) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1037/lhb0000510 · Cited by 21

    “Research is already showing reductions in disproportionality associated with one California policy that recategorized some drug and property offenses so they are considered less serious misdemeanors (Lofstrom et al., 2020; MacDonald & Raphael, 2020).”
    Background

Metadata

Authors
Lofstrom, M., Martin, B., & Raphael, S.
Affiliations
  • Public Policy Institute of California (US)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
Corresponding author
Lofstrom, Magnus
Venue
Criminology & Public Policy
Published
2020-10-15
Volume
19
Issue
4
Pages
1165-1207
ISSN
  • 1538-6473 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-9133
OpenAlex
W3020866687
Cited by
20
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 1
FWCI
2.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Criminology & Public Policy (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Justice and Penology
  • Social Sciences › Education › Education Discipline and Inequality
Keywords
sentencing reform, racial and ethnic disparities, arrest rates, incarceration rates, drug offenses, African Americans, Hispanic Americans, white arrestees, California

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review