Proposition 13 and the San Francisco Criminal Justice System First Reactions to a Disaster (From Crime and Criminal Justice in a Declining Economy, P 147-171, 1981, Kevin N Wright, ed. - See NCJ-84138)

• NCJ Number: 84144
• Author(s): B Hoffman
• Date Published: 1981
• Length: 25 pages
• Grant Number(s): A-2926-2-78
• Sponsoring Agency: US Dept of Justice; San Francisco Mayor's Criminal Justice Council; San Francisco Criminal Justice Planning Office
• Corporate Author: San Francisco City and Cty Municipal Court
• Sale Source: Oelgeschlager, Gunn and Hain Publishers, Inc
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: Article is a revision of a paper prepared for the 1979 meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Annotation

In the immediate aftermath of the passage of Proposition 13 reductions in property taxes in San Francisco, the criminal justice system experienced a 10 percent cut in funds, which was borne largely through employee attrition and loss of wage increases.

Abstract

Although the intent of Proposition 13 was to force the city government to cut waste, it did not immediately succeed. Civil service regulations and supervisory reluctance prevented selective dismissals. Instead, the uncertainty of local financing hastened the retirement of personnel, encouraged professionals to seek jobs in private industry, and discouraged the entry of career-minded people into government. The crisis did not inspire any coordinated effort at increased interagency cooperation in the criminal justice system. The State's replacement of the loss of local funds with State funds softened the blow of Proposition 13, but has only postponed the cuts that must be made as State support wanes. Two years after the passage of Proposition 13, there has been a slow erosion of services too gradual and disbursed to attract the public's attention. The criminal justice agencies (with the exception of the police) are experiencing the effects of two successive 10 percent cuts, resulting in about a 32 percent reduction since 1977-78. Accounting for amounts that must go for annual employee raises and soaring inflation costs means that departments have 'real' operating budgets with reductions of 40 percent or more. Four revenue-raising measures are pending for action in June 1980. (Author summary modified)