skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 84144 Add to Shopping cart Find in a Library
Title: 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)
Author(s): B Hoffman
Corporate Author: San Francisco City and Cty Municipal Court
United States of America
Date Published: 1981
Page Count: 25
Sponsoring Agency: Oelgeschlager, Gunn and Hain Publishers, Inc
Boston, MA 02116
San Francisco City and Cty Municipal Court
San Francisco, CA 94102
San Francisco Criminal Justice Planning Office
San Francisco, CA 94102
San Francisco Mayor's Criminal Justice Council
San Francisco, CA 94102
US Dept of Justice
Washington, DC 20531
Grant Number: A-2926-2-78
Sale Source: Oelgeschlager, Gunn and Hain Publishers, Inc
131 Clarendon Street
Boston, MA 02116
United States of America
Language: English
Country: United States of America
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)
Index Term(s): Allocution; California; Local government; Voter mandated tax cuts
Note: Article is a revision of a paper prepared for the 1979 meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences in Cincinnati, Ohio.
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.