A Legislative Analyst’s Office review finds that shifting lower-level offenders from state prisons to counties produced a modest rise in property crime and no effect on violent crime, as the state’s crime rate stands 27 percent below 2011
An Experiment Born Of Necessity
In 2011, California’s prisons were operating at about 180 percent of their design capacity. A federal court had found in 2009 that overcrowding undermined inmates’ right to adequate health care, and the Supreme Court agreed in 2011. The state was ordered to reduce its prison population. Governor Jerry Brown and the legislature responded with Assembly Bill 109, known as realignment, which shifted responsibility for many lower-level offenders from state prisons to county jails and supervision.
Fifteen years later, the evidence is in. Steven Greenhut, western region director for the R Street Institute, wrote about it in a column republished by Reason on July 24 under the headline California’s prison reform experiment worked, the state’s crime rate has fallen by 27 percent in 15 years.
What The Data Show
Greenhut draws on a June 2026 report by the state’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office evaluating realignment. According to the LAO, realignment contributed to a modest increase in property crime and had no effect on violent crime. Sentences for violent crimes were largely unaffected. Drawing on a separate 2025 crime report, Greenhut notes that California’s crime rate is now 27 percent lower than in 2011.
That is not the outcome critics predicted. When realignment was introduced, opponents warned of a crime wave as offenders who would previously have gone to state prison were handled locally. Some conservatives later blamed realignment for crime increases during and after the pandemic. The LAO’s findings do not support those claims.
Why Libertarians Should Care
Criminal justice reform is one of the areas where libertarian principles are most directly at stake. Prisons are among the most coercive institutions any government runs. They are also among the most expensive. California spends a large amount per prisoner each year, far more than it spends per student in its public schools. Every prison bed represents both a deprivation of liberty and a significant cost to taxpayers.
A limited-government approach to criminal justice asks whether incarceration is the most effective response to a given offence, or whether alternatives such as supervision, treatment, restitution and community-based programs might protect public safety at lower cost and with less damage to individuals and families. Realignment, whatever its imperfections, tested that question at scale. The results suggest that California was locking up many people whose incarceration did little to make anyone safer.
Fear Versus Evidence
Greenhut criticizes Republican campaigns that, in his view, used fear rather than data to oppose realignment, including an Assembly Republican online video campaign and later efforts to roll back the policy and build new prisons. He cites a 2013 Los Angeles Times column by former Republican Assembly members Pat Nolan and Chuck DeVore that criticized what they called old scare tactics. The point is not partisan. Politicians of every party have found it easy to campaign on fear of crime. The responsible approach is to follow the evidence, even when it contradicts a popular narrative.
This is also a reminder that being tough on crime and being tough on government waste are not opposites. Fiscal conservatives and libertarians have joined reformers across the political spectrum in arguing that mass incarceration is an expensive, often ineffective use of public money.
Closing Prisons Instead Of Building Them
One of the most significant results of realignment and subsequent reforms is that California has been closing prisons rather than building new ones. That frees up public resources and reduces the footprint of the state’s most coercive institution. It also creates an opportunity to invest in approaches that may prevent crime more effectively, from addressing addiction and mental illness to supporting re-entry and employment for people leaving custody.
The fiscal stakes are substantial. California spends far more per prisoner each year than it spends per public school student. Every prison closure saves hundreds of millions of dollars in operating costs over time. For taxpayers, that is money that can be returned through lower taxes or redirected to services that do more to prevent crime in the first place. For people who would otherwise be incarcerated, it is the difference between losing years of their lives and having the chance to work, support their families and contribute to their communities.
The Limits Of Any Single Policy
No single policy explains crime trends, which are shaped by economics, demographics, policing, social conditions and many other factors. The LAO’s finding of a modest rise in property crime deserves attention, and communities affected by theft and vandalism have legitimate concerns. Reforms should be adjusted where evidence shows problems. But adjusting reforms based on evidence is very different from reversing them based on fear.
A Lesson For The Coast And Beyond
Coastal communities, like everywhere else, want safe streets and beaches. Surfers who have had cars broken into at the trailhead understand that property crime is real. But safety does not require locking up ever more people at ever greater cost. California’s experience suggests that a smaller, smarter justice system can coexist with falling crime. That is good news for liberty and for taxpayers alike, and it is a lesson other states would do well to study.