7

California Department of Corrections
And Rehabilitation

2012 Outcome Evaluation Report

Office of Research
October 2012

You can obtain reports by contacting the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation at the following address:

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Office of Research, Research and Evaluation Branch
1515 S Street, Suite 221N
Sacramento, California 95811
916.323.2919

Or

On the World Wide Web at:
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/adult_research_branch/

CDCR Office of Research
"Providing quality research, data analysis and evaluation to implement
evidence-based programs and practices, strengthen policy, inform
management decisions and ensure accountability."

Produced by

Matthew Cate, Secretary
Martin Hoshino, Undersecretary
Lee Seale, Director
Office of Research, Research and Evaluation Branch
Brenda Grealish, Deputy Director
Tina Fitzgerald, Chief (A)
Kevin Grassel, Research Program Specialist II
Dionne Maxwell, Research Program Specialist II
Betty Viscuso, Associate Information Systems Analyst
Teresa Isorena, Research Program Specialist I
Minerva Reyes, Research Program Specialist I

Permission is granted to reproduce reports.
For questions regarding the contents of this report, please contact
Tina Fitzgerald, Chief (A) Research and Evaluation Branch.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION

EDMUND G . BROWN JR., GOVERNOR

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
1515 S Street, 95814
P.O. Box 942883
Sacramento, CA 94283-000 1

October 22, 2012
Dear Colleagues:
The mission of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) is to
protect the public by safely and . securely supervising adult and juvenile offenders,
providing effective rehabilitation and treatment, and integrating offenders successfully
into the community, Consistent with this purpose , we hold ourselves accountable for
data-driven policies informed by the latest research on what works in corrections and
rehabilitation,
As a part of this commitment, I am pleased to present the third in a series of annual
reports on the outcomes of inmates released from CDCR correctional institutions . This
report features measures of recidivism which we can use to track improvement and
compare our performance with that of other states that are similarly situated , As seen in
the report , California's recidivism rates have declined for the second straight year. New
this year is a section on juvenile offenders released from CDCR's Division of Juvenile
Justice; an examination of recidivism rates for offenders who were assessed by
COMPAS ; and a special feature section focusing on the Prison University Project, a
college education program that has been in operation at San Quentin for over ten years,
This report is a tangible result of our commitment to transparency and accountability.
My hope is that this information will provide new insights to policy-makers and
correctional stakeholders that will be useful in moving the State forward with regard to
efforts that increase publi c safety through the reduction of recidivism,
Sincerely,

'/IYlod--/ C-k
MATTHEW L. CATE
Secretary
cc:

Martin Hoshino , Undersecretary
Terri McDonald, Undersecretary
Lee Seale, Director
Brenda Grealish, Deputy Director
Tina Fitzgerald , Chief (A)

Table of Contents
Definition of Terms ........................................................................................................ ix 
1 

Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1 

2 

Evaluation Design ........................................................................................... 4 
2.1 
2.2 

Objectives and Purpose of the Evaluation .................................................................... 4 
Primary Definition of Recidivism .................................................................................... 4 

3.1 
3.2 

Methods.…………..………………………………………………………………….5 
Data Sources ................................................................................................................. 5 
Data Limitations ............................................................................................................. 6 

4.1 
4.2 
4.3 
4.3.1 

Release Cohort Description ........................................................................................... 7 
Overall CDCR Adult Recidivism Rate.......................................................................... 13 
Time to Return ............................................................................................................. 14 
Time to Return for the 73,885 Recidivists ................................................................... 14 

3

4 

Adult Institutions ............................................................................................ 7 

4.4 
Adult Recidivism Rate by Demographics .................................................................... 15 
4.4.1  Gender ......................................................................................................................... 16 
4.4.2  Age at Release ............................................................................................................ 17 
4.4.3  Race/Ethnicity .............................................................................................................. 19 
4.4.4  County of Parole .......................................................................................................... 21 
4.5 
Adult Offender Characteristics ..................................................................................... 23 
4.5.1  Commitment Offense Category ................................................................................... 23 
4.5.2  Commitment Offense ................................................................................................... 25 
4.5.3  Sentence Type............................................................................................................. 28 
4.5.4  Sex Registrants ........................................................................................................... 29 
4.5.5  Recommitment Offense for Sex Registrants ............................................................... 30 
4.5.6  Comparison of Violent, Drug, and Registered Sex Offender Recidivism Rates
by Age .......................................................................................................................... 31 
4.5.7  Serious or Violent Offenders ....................................................................................... 33 
4.5.8  Mental Health Status ................................................................................................... 34 
4.5.9  Risk of Recidivism ....................................................................................................... 35 
4.5.10  Prior Admission to Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ).................................................. 37 
4.6 
CDCR Incarceration Experience ................................................................................. 39 
4.6.1  Length-of-Stay (Current Term) .................................................................................... 39 
4.6.2  Number of Returns to CDCR Custody Prior to Release (Current Term Only) ............ 41 
4.6.3  Number of CDCR Stays Ever (All Terms Combined) .................................................. 43 
4.7 
Recidivism by Adult Institutional Missions ................................................................... 45 
4.7.1  Institution Missions ...................................................................................................... 45 

i

4.7.2  Security Housing Unit (SHU) ....................................................................................... 47 
4.8 
Recidivism by CDCR Program .................................................................................... 49 
4.8.1  Developmental Disability Program (DDP) ................................................................... 49 
4.8.2  In-Prison and Community-Based Substance Abuse (SAP) Treatment Programs ...... 50 
4.8.3  Correctional Offender Management and Profiling Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS) . 52 
4.9 

Type of Return to CDCR ............................................................................................. 55 

5.1 
5.2 
5.3 
5.4 
5.5 

Juvenile Facilities ......................................................................................... 58 
Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) ................................................................................ 58 
Release Cohort Description ......................................................................................... 58 
Juvenile Returns to DJJ ............................................................................................... 61 
Juvenile Return/Commitment to DAI ........................................................................... 62 
Any State-Level Incarceration ..................................................................................... 63 

5 

6 

Special Feature ............................................................................................. 64 

7 

Conclusion .................................................................................................... 66 

Appendix A

One-, Two- and Three-Year Recidivism Rates for Arrests,
Convictions, and Returns to Prison for Adult Felons Released
Between FYs 2002-03 and 2009-10................................................. 67 

Appendix B

One-, Two- and Three-Year Recidivism Rates for Arrests,
Convictions, Returns to DJJ, Return/Commitment to DAI, and
Any State-Level Incarceration for Juvenile Offenders Released
Between FYs 2004-05 and 2009-10................................................. 70 

Appendix

C

Three-Year Recidivism Rates by Offender Characteristics Adult
Felons Released During FY 2007-08 .............................................. 75 

Appendix

D

Mission and Institution Recidivism Rates by Gender, Adult Felons
Released During FY 2007-08........................................................... 86 

Appendix

E

Three-Year Recidivism Rates By Security Housing Unit (SHU)
Institution and Time Between SHU and Parole, Adult Felons
Released in FY 2007-08 ................................................................... 89 

Appendix

F

Substance Abuse Treatment Programs ......................................... 91 

List of Tables and Figures
Tables
Table 1. Cohort Description......................................................................................................... 10 
Table 2. Overall Recidivism Rates: First releases, Re-Releases and Total .............................. 14 
Table 3. Three-Year Quarterly and Cumulative Rate of Return Post Release ........................... 15 
Table 4. Recidivism Rates by Gender ......................................................................................... 17 
Table 5. Recidivism Rates by Age Group ................................................................................... 18 
Table 6. Recidivism Rates By Race/Ethnicity ............................................................................. 20 
Table 7. Recidivism Rates by County ......................................................................................... 22 

ii

Table 8. Recidivism Rates by Commitment Offense Category ................................................... 24 
Table 9. Recidivism Rates by Commitment Offense................................................................... 27 
Table 10. Recidivism Rates by Sentence Type ............................................................................ 29 
Table 11. Recidivism Rates by Sex Registration Flag .................................................................. 30 
Table 12. Sex Registrant Recommitment Offense ........................................................................ 31 
Table 13. Violent, Drug, and Registered Sex Offender Recidivism Rates by Age ....................... 32 
Table 14. Recidivism Rates by Serious/Violent Offender Flag ..................................................... 33 
Table 15. Recidivism Rates by Mental Health Status ................................................................... 35 
Table 16. Recidivism Rates by CSRA Risk Category ................................................................... 37 
Table 17. Recidivism Rates by Prior DJJ Status........................................................................... 38 
Table 18. Recidivism Rates by Length-of-Stay ............................................................................. 40 
Table 19. Number of Returns to CDCR Custody on Current Term Prior to Release.................... 42 
Table 20. Recidivism Rates by Total Number of Stays Ever ........................................................ 44 
Table 21. Recidivism Rates by Institutional Missions ................................................................... 47 
Table 22. Recidivism Rates by Institutional Missions Sorted from Highest to Lowest................. 47 
Table 23. Recidivism Rates by Security Housing Unit Status ....................................................... 48 
Table 24. Recidivism Rates by DDP Participation ........................................................................ 50 
Table 25. Recidivism Rates by Substance Abuse Treatment Program Involvement ................... 52 
Table 26. Recidivism Rates by Substance Abuse Treatment Program Involvement and
Substance Abuse Treatment Need ............................................................................... 54 
Table 27. Parole Violators Returned to Custody ........................................................................... 56 
Table 28. Description of Youth Released from DJJ during FY 2007-08, by 707(b)/290 Status .. 59 
Table 29. Three-Year Rates of Return to DJJ by Offender Type.................................................. 61 
Table 30. Three-Year Rates of Return/Commitment to DAI by Offender Type ............................ 63 
Table 31. Three-Year Rates of Return to Any State-Level Incarceration by Offender Type ........ 64 
Table 32. Recidivism Rates by Prison University Project Involvement ......................................... 65 
Table 33. One Year Outcomes for PUP Graduates and Matched Comparison Group ................ 66 

Figures
Figure A. Three-Year Recidivism Rates for Arrests, Convictions, and Returns to Prison for
Felons Released Between Fiscal Years 2002-03 and 2007-08 ................................... 1 
Figure B. Three-Year Recidivism Rates for Felons Released from All CDCR Institutions During
FY 2007-08 .................................................................................................................... 3 
Figure 1. Overall Recidivism Rates: First Releases, Re-Releases and Total .......................... 13 
Figure 2. Three-Year Quarterly and Cumulative Rate of Return Post Release ......................... 14 
Figure 3. Recidivism Rates by Gender ....................................................................................... 16 
Figure 4. Three-Year Recidivism Rates by Age at Release ....................................................... 17 
Figure 5. Three-Year Recidivism Rates by Race/Ethnicity ......................................................... 19 
Figure 6. Three-Year Recidivism Rates by County .................................................................... 21 
Figure 7. Recidivism Rates by Commitment Offense Category ................................................. 23 
iii

Figure 8.

Three-Year Recidivism Rates by Commitment Offense.............................................. 25 

Figure 9. Recidivism Rates by Sentence Type ........................................................................... 28 
Figure 10. Recidivism Rates by Sex Registration Flag................................................................. 29 
Figure 11. Sex Registrant Recommitment Offense ...................................................................... 30 
Figure 12. Violent, Drug, and Registered Sex Offender Recidivism Rates by Age ..................... 31 
Figure 13. Recidivism Rates by Serious/Violent Offender Flag.................................................... 33 
Figure 14. Recidivism Rates by Mental Health Status.................................................................. 34 
Figure 15. Recidivism Rates by CSRA Risk Category ................................................................. 36 
Figure 16. Recidivism Rates by Prior DJJ Status ......................................................................... 38 
Figure 17. Recidivism Rates by Length-of-Stay ........................................................................... 39 
Figure 18. Three-Year Recidivism Rates by Number of Returns to CDCR Custody (RTC) on the
Current Term Prior to Release .................................................................................... 41 
Figure 19. Three-Year Recidivism Rates by Total Number of Stays Ever .................................. 43 
Figure 20. Three-Year Recidivism Rates by Institutional Missions ............................................. 45 
Figure 21. Recidivism Rates by Security Housing Unit Status ..................................................... 48 
Figure 22. Recidivism Rates by DDP Participation....................................................................... 49 
Figure 23. Three-Year Recidivism Rates by Substance Abuse Treatment Program
Involvement ................................................................................................................. 51 
Figure 24. Three-Year Recidivism Rates by Substance Abuse Treatment Program
Involvement for Inmates with a Completed COMPAS who had an Identified
Substance Abuse Need ............................................................................................... 53 
Figure 25. Three-Year Outcomes for Inmates Released From All CDCR Adult Institutions in
FY 2007-08. ................................................................................................................. 55 
Figure 26. Three-Year Rates of Return to DJJ by Offender Type ................................................ 61 
Figure 27. Three-Year Rates of Return/Commitment to DAI by Offender Type........................... 62 
Figure 28. Three-Year Rates of Return to Any State-Level Incarceration by Offender Type ...... 63 
Figure 29. One-Year Recidivism Rates by Prison University Project Involvement ...................... 65 

iv

Executive Summary
Introduction
the purpose of this report. We chose
this measure because it is the most
reliable measure available and is well
understood and commonly used by
most correctional stakeholders.

To comport with national best practices,
the California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation (CDCR) measures
recidivism
by
tracking
arrests,
convictions and returns to State
custody.
CDCR uses the latter
measure, returns to State custody, as
the primary measure of recidivism for

CDCR has reported recidivism rates for
adult felons released from custody since
1977. Since this time, the methodology
for reporting recidivism has changed.

Figure 1. Three-Year Recidivism Rates for Returns to Prison for Adult Felons Released
Between Fiscal Years 2002-03 and 2007-08

Three-Year Recidivism Rates by FY
100%
90%
80%
70%

66.2%     

65.6%     

67.5%     

66.8%     

65.1%     

63.7%     

60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2002‐03

2003‐04

2004‐05

2005‐06

Returns to Prison

v

2006‐07

2007‐08

Fig
gure 2. Thre
ee-Year Recid
divism Rates ffor
Felo
ons Releassed from All
During
CDC
CR
Institutions
Fisccal Year 2007
7-08

Comm
mencing witth our 2010
0 report, all
felons
s are tracke
ed for the fu
ull follow-up
p
period, regardles
ss of their status
s
as on
n
parole or disch
harged.
In
I addition,,
recidivism
rates
are
presented
d
based on num
merous characteristics
s
(e.g., commitme
ent offense, length-of-stay). This repo
ort is the firs
st to include
e
both adult and ju
uvenile recid
divism data..
Unles
ss otherwise
e indicated,, discussion
n
of rec
cidivism data throughou
ut this reportt
refers
s to adult da
ata.

Reciidivism Definition
CDCR measures
s recidivism by arrests,,
conviictions, an
nd returns to State
e
custo
ody.
CDCR uses the latterr
meas
sure, returns
s to State custody, as its
s
prima
ary
meas
sure
of
recidivism..
Throu
ughout this docume
ent, unless
s
otherrwise stated
d, the terms
s recidivate
e
and recidivism refer to this primary
y
meas
sure. For adults,
a
State
e custody is
s
meas
sured as CD
DCR “return
n to prison,””
defined as follow
ws:

Key F
Findings
Overa
all Adult CDC
CR Recidivissm Rates

1

 T
The total th
hree-year re
ecidivism ratte
((return to prison) for all felon
ns
rreleased during fiscal year (FY
Y)
2
2007-08 is 6
63.7 percentt (Figure 2).
 T
The one-ye
ear rates ha
ave decline
ed
sslightly under all m
measures o
of
rrecidivism ssince FY 2
2007-08 witth
tthe exceptio
on of a sm
mall increasse
iin arrests (+0.2 percent) in
F
FY 2008-09.
 M
Most felons who recidivvate return tto
p
prison with
hin a yearr of releasse
((74.5 percen
nt).
 R
Re-released
d felons reccidivate at a
rrate 20.3 p
percentage p
points highe
er
tthan those rreleased for the first time
e.

An
n individual co
onvicted of a felony
and incarcerate
ed in a CDCR
R adult
prison who was
s released to parole,
dis
scharged afte
er being paro
oled, or
dirrectly discha
arged from CDCR
during a define
ed time perio
od and
subsequently returned
r
to prison2
during a specifie
ed follow-up period.
p

For juveniles, re
eturns to Sttate custody
y
are measured
m
as
s:
Re
eturns to the Division of Juvenile
Justice (DJJ), re
eturns/commitments
to a CDCR adult prison
n, and
retturns
to
any
State-level
inc
carceration.

CDCR
R Inmate Personal Charracteristics
 F
Females h
have a 5
52.9 percen
nt
rrecidivism rate, which
h is approxxiimately 12.1 percentage
e points lowe
er
tthan that of males.
 Y
Younger fe
elons recidiivate at th
he
h
highest rate
e. Inmatess released a
at
a
age 24 or yo
ounger returrn to prison a
at
a rate of 70.3 percent.

1

Due
e to reporting limitations civ
vil addicts are
e
exc
cluded.
2
This
s may inclu
ude individua
als who are
e
retu
urned to priso
on pending re
evocation, butt
who
ose cases are
e “continued on parole” orr
dism
missed.
vi

 Adult inmates who were previously
incarcerated at DJJ (formerly
known as the California Youth
Authority) recidivate at a rate that is
approximately 15 percentage points
higher than those who were never
incarcerated at DJJ.
CDCR Adult Offender Length-of-Stay

 Race/ethnicity appears to influence
recidivism rates for first-releases, but
this effect is not as evident for rereleased inmates.
 Slightly more than a quarter of all
inmates are paroled to Los Angeles
County after release. Of these
parolees,
only
54.0
percent
recidivated within three years, which
is lower than the statewide average.

 Recidivism rates increase with
lengths-of-stay up to 19 to
24 months and decrease thereafter.
Inmates with a length-of-stay
between 19 and 24 months
recidivate at the highest rate
(69.8 percent). Those who served
over 15 years in prison recidivate at
the lowest rate (44.2 percent).
 There is little variation in the
recidivism rate despite the number
of prior returns to CDCR custody
within the current term.
 Although fewer inmates return to
prison as the total number of stays
increase, recidivism rates for those
with more total stays increase with
each additional stay at CDCR
institutions.
CDCR Adult Institutional Missions

CDCR Adult Offender Characteristics
 Inmates committed to prison for a
property crime consistently recidivate at a higher rate than those
committed for other types of crimes
including crimes against persons,
drug crimes, and “other” crimes.
 Inmates committed for more serious
crimes do not have higher
recidivism rates.
For example,
inmates released for rape have a
lower recidivism rate (52.0 percent)
than those who were committed for
vehicle theft (72.8 percent).
 Although few in number, inmates
released after having served an
indeterminate sentence recidivate
at a much lower rate (14.3 percent)
than those who served a determinate sentence (63.7 percent).
 Felons required to register as sex
offenders (i.e., sex registrants)
recidivate at a higher rate
(69.1 percent) as compared to
other
felons
(63.3
percent).
Approximately 87 percent of sex
registrants who recidivate do so
because of a parole violation.
 Inmates designated as serious or
violent offenders recidivate at a
lower rate than those who are not.
 Inmates participating in mental
health programs recidivate at rates
8.6 to 14.7 percentage points
higher than other felons.
 The
California
Static
Risk
Assessment performs well at
predicting inmate risk for recidivism.

 Inmates housed in reception centers
for at least 30 days prior to release
have a recidivism rate that is higher
than any other institutional mission.
 Inmates who had spent time in the
Security Housing Unit (SHU) prior to
release recidivate at a higher rate
(68.2 percent) than those who had
not (63.4 percent).
CDCR Adult Programs
 Released felons who had a
designated developmental disability
recidivate at a rate that is
13.8 percentage points higher than
those who did not have a developmental disability designation.
 In-prison
participation
in
a
Substance Abuse Program (SAP),
combined with completion of postrelease community-based aftercare results in a recidivism rate
vii

(31.3 percent) that is much lower
than those that did not participate in
any SAP (63.9 percent).
 Offenders with a substance abuse
need, as identified by the COMPAS
assessment, who participated in an
in-prison SAP and completed
aftercare had a lower recidivism rate
than offenders with a substance
abuse need who only completed
aftercare but did not participate in
SAP (30.7 percent and 46.6 percent,
respectively).
 Prison University Project (PUP)
graduates recidivate at a rate
that is lower than a matched
comparison
group
of
nonparticipants (5.4 percent and 21.2
percent, respectively).
Overall
Rates

CDCR

Juvenile

Recidivism

 Juveniles
released
from
DJJ
returned to DJJ at a rate of
25.4 percent.
 Juveniles
released
from
DJJ
returned to or were committed to
DAI at a rate of 38.1 percent.
 The overall rate of juveniles released
from DJJ who returned to any Statelevel incarceration was 53.8 percent.
Conclusion
This report demonstrates how recidivism
varies among offenders by their
personal characteristics such as gender,
race, age, and mental health status, as
well as by their arrest histories and
behavior while under CDCR custody
and supervision. These findings are
consistent with other jurisdictions across
the United States and have important
implications for correctional policy and
practice.

viii

Definition of Terms
California Static Risk Assessment (CSRA)
The CSRA is an actuarial tool that utilizes demographic and criminal history data to
predict an offender’s risk of recidivating at the time they are released from CDCR.
Offenders are categorized as low, moderate or high risk of incurring a new criminal
conviction.
Cohort
A group of individuals who share a common characteristic, such as all inmates who
were released to parole during a given year.
Controlling Crime or Commitment Offense
The most serious offense on the conviction for which the inmate was sentenced to
prison on that term.
Correctional Clinical Case Management System (CCCMS)
The CCCMS facilitates mental health care by linking inmate/patients to needed
services and providing sustained support while accessing such services. CCCMS
services are provided as outpatient services within the general population setting at
all institutions.
Determinate Sentencing Law (DSL)
Established by Penal Code Section 1170 in 1976, Determinate Sentencing Law
identifies a specified sentence length for convicted felons who are remanded to
State prison. Essentially, three specific terms of imprisonment (low, middle, and
high) are assigned for crimes, as well as enhancements (specific case factors that
allow judges to add time to a sentence). Opportunities to earn “credits” can reduce
the length of incarceration.
Developmental Disability Program (DDP)
A designation applied to inmates with developmental disabilities to ensure that they
are accurately identified; provided with appropriate classification, housing, and
protection; and not subjected to discrimination.
Enhanced Outpatient Program (EOP)
A mental health services designation applied to a severely mentally ill inmate
receiving treatment at a level similar to day treatment services.
First Release
The first release on the current term for felons with new admissions and parole
violators returning with a new term (PV-WNT).
Indeterminate Sentencing Law (ISL)
Established by Penal Code Section 1168 in 1917, the Indeterminate Sentencing
Law allowed judges to determine a range of time (minimum and maximum) a
convicted felon would serve. Different felons convicted for the same crimes could
spend varying lengths of time in prison; release depended on many factors,
including each prisoner’s individual conduct in prison. After the minimum sentence
passed, felons were brought to a parole board that would identify the actual date of
release. Indeterminate Sentencing was replaced by Determinate Sentencing
(Penal Code Section 1170) in 1976. After the implementation of Determinate
ix

Sentencing, only individuals with life sentences and third strikers are considered
“indeterminately” sentenced, since the parole board determines their release.
Institutional Mission
Institutions are designated with a mission that meets the security level or special
purpose required for the inmates being housed. Reception centers process
incoming inmates. Levels I, II, III, and IV house male general population inmates
according to their security classification (low, medium, high-medium, and
maximum). Female institutions provide female offenders with gender-responsive
supervision, treatment, and services. Camps and “other” facilities house low-level
inmates while providing rehabilitative treatment through work, vocation, academic
and substance abuse programs. Institutions may have one or more missions
according to the security needs and/or special purposes.
Manual California Static Risk Assessment (CSRA)
Inmates who do not have automated criminal history data available from the
Department of Justice (DOJ) must have their CSRA score calculated manually.
This is done with a review of a paper copy of the inmate’s rap sheet. Manual
scores calculated in FY 2007-08 are not readily available for some inmates
included in this report.
Offender Types-Juvenile
707(b)/290 Offenders
Youth committed to DJJ with an offense included in Welfare and Institutions Code
707(b), and/or youth required to register as sex offenders under Penal Code
section 290. Youth committed to DJJ from adult court are considered a 707(b)
case whether or not their commitment offense is included in Welfare and
Institutions Code 707(b).
Non-707(b)/290 Offenders
All other DJJ youth who were committed to DJJ with commitment offenses not
falling under Welfare and Institutions Code 707(b) or Penal Code section 290.
Parole
A period of conditional supervised release following a prison term.
Parole Violation (Law)
A law violation occurs when a parolee commits a crime while on parole and returns
to CDCR custody (RTC) by action of the Board of Parole Hearings rather than by
prosecution in the courts.
Parole Violation (Technical)
A technical violation occurs when a parolee violates a condition of his/her parole
that is not considered a new crime and returns to CDCR custody (RTC).
Parole Violator Returning With a New Term (PV-WNT)
A parolee who receives a court sentence for a new crime committed while under
parole supervision and returned to prison.
Registered Sex Offender
An inmate is designated as a registered sex offender if CDCR records show that
the inmate has at some point been convicted of an offense that requires

x

registration as a sex offender under Penal Code Section 290. This designation is
permanent in CDCR records.
Re-Release
After a return to prison for a parole violation, any subsequent release on the same
(current) term is a re-release.
Serious Felony Offenses
Serious felony offenses are specified in Penal Code Section 1192.7(c) and Penal
Code Section 1192.8.
Stay
A stay is any period of time an inmate is housed in a CDCR institution. Each time
an inmate returns to prison it is considered a new stay, regardless of the reason for
returning.
Substance Abuse Program (SAP)
CDCR offers in-prison and post-release, community-based substance abuse
treatment programs designed to reduce offender alcohol abuse and eliminate
offender drug use.
Term
A term is a sentence an inmate receives from a court to be committed to CDCR for
a length-of-time. If an inmate is released after serving a term and is later returned
to prison for a parole violation, the inmate returns and continues serving the
original (current) term. If that inmate returns for committing a new crime, the
inmate begins serving a new term.
Violent Felony Offenses
Violent felony offenses are specified in Penal Code Section 667.5(c).

xi

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

2012 Outcome Evaluation Report
1 Introduction
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(CDCR) is pleased to present the 2012 Outcome Evaluation
Report, our third in an annual series of reports analyzing
recidivism for felons released from California prisons. This report
provides information about recidivism to CDCR executives,
lawmakers and other correctional stakeholders who have an
interest in the dynamics of reoffending behavior and reducing
recidivism.
Figure A. Three-Year Recidivism Rates for Returns to Prison for
Felons Released Between Fiscal Years 2002-03 and
2007-08

Three-Year Recidivism Rates by FY
100%
90%
80%
70%

66.8%     
66.2%     

67.5%     

65.6%     

65.1%     

63.7%     

60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2002‐03

2003‐04

2004‐05

2005‐06

Returns to Prison

2006‐07

2007‐08

1

2

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

As with our prior recidivism reports, this report measures
recidivism by tracking arrests, convictions, and returns to prison at
one-, two-, and three-year intervals.
We continue to focus on the three-year return-to-prison rate as our
primary measure of recidivism. This measure, as described in our
prior reports, includes offenders released from prison after having
served their sentence for a crime, as well as offenders released
from prison after having served their term for a parole violation. It
also includes all offenders released from prison, whether on
parole or discharged from parole during the three-year follow-up
period. An offender is counted as a recidivist if he or she is
returned to prison, whether for a new crime or for a parole
violation, within that three-year period.
We employ an approach that is consistent with that set forth in last
year’s report so that policymakers and researchers can have yearover-year comparisons. Accordingly, the data associated with this
year’s cohort will supplement those reported in previous years,
providing a progressively fuller picture of trends in recidivism with
each successive report.
The focus of this year’s report is the cohort of inmates released
from prison during fiscal year 2007-08, a period of fundamental
change in CDCR’s approach to offender supervision and
rehabilitative programming. It was during this time that CDCR
committed itself to using evidence-based tools to assess offender
risks and needs. The Expert Panel on Adult Offender Reentry and
Recidivism Reduction Programs, a group of correctional experts
convened by CDCR to develop strategies for reducing recidivism,
had recommended in June 2007 that CDCR assess offender risks
and needs to better target its rehabilitative programs and
supervision. Indeed, that year reception center counselors and
field parole agents began using a tool known as the Correctional
Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions
(COMPAS) to identify program needs for inmates and parolees.
The following year, in late 2008, CDCR began using the California
Static Risk Assessment (CSRA), a validated tool using offender
data obtained from CDCR and the California Department of
Justice (DOJ) databases to predict the risk of re-offense for
parolees. Together, the use of these two new tools represented a
significant milestone for CDCR. Risk and needs assessment had
become a growing part of offender management.
The 116,015 inmates released to parole during fiscal year
2007-08 were among the first State prisoners to be assessed with
these new tools. This group’s recidivism rate is 63.7 percent. We
are pleased to report that this represents the second year in a row
that recidivism rates have declined.
Along with prior years, this report evaluates the CSRA’s success
in predicting recidivism and finds that it performs well in its
predictions. New this year is an examination of recidivism rates

2012 CDC
CR Outcome
e Evaluation Report
October 2012

fo
or offenders who were identified by
y a COMPA
AS assessment as
having a pro
obable or hig
ghly probable need for substance abuse
trreatment.
Other
O
new features in this
s year’s repo
ort are recid
divism analysses for
offfenders rele
eased in FY
Y 2007-08 who
w
were id entified as having
been incarce
erated in th
he CDCR Division of Juvenile JJustice
(fformerly kno
own as the California Youth
Y
Autho rity), as well as a
special featu
ure section that focuse
es on the Prison University
Project,
P
a college educattion program
m that has be
een in opera
ation at
San
S
Quentin
n State Pris
son for ove
er ten yearss. The ou
utcome
re
eporting pro
ocess has also
a
been streamlined by combinin
ng the
adult and juve
enile outcom
mes into this one report.
n future reports, we an
nticipate thatt we will co
ontinue to m
monitor
In
how changes
s to California’s parole structure
s
imp
pacts its reciidivism
ra
ates not only with re
espect to non-revocab
n
ble parole, which
prohibited ce
ertain low-le
evel offenders from b
being return
ned to
cu
ustody, butt also Gov
vernor Brow
wn’s historicc criminal justice
re
ealignment le
egislation, which
w
require
es that all pa
arole violators who
are returned to custody serve their time at loccal jails inste
ead of
prison. Califo
ornia is now in line with
w
many other state
es that
similarly use jail, not pris
son, as custo
ody for paro
ole violators. As a
re
esult, we ex
xpect to see
e changes to
t our recid ivism rates in the
co
oming yearrs as Califo
ornia move
es away fro
om some o
of the
practices thatt contributed
d to our high rates.
Ultimately,
U
ou
ur goal is th
hat this and future reporrts will continue to
alifornia to rreduce
spur discussion of the be
est possible ways for Ca
re
ecidivism and better prottect public safety.
ecidivism Ra
ates for Felons Released
d from
Figure B. Three-Year Re
Alll CDCR Institutions During FY 2007 -08

3

4

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

2 Evaluation Design
2.1 Objectives and Purpose of the Evaluation
This report presents the recidivism rates for CDCR inmates and
DJJ youth. The report also examines how adult recidivism rates
vary across time and place, by person (personal and offender
characteristics), by incarceration experience (e.g., length-of-stay),
and by CDCR adult missions and institutions.

2.2 Primary Definition of Recidivism
Although there are numerous ways to define recidivism
(e.g., arrests, convictions, returns to prison), CDCR employs
returns to State-level custody as its primary indicator of a
recidivist. An adult recidivist is defined as follows:

In this report, an
adult recidivist is
defined as a
convicted felon who
was released from
CDCR in
FY 2007-08 and
subsequently
returned to CDCR
within a three-year
follow-up period.

An individual convicted of a felony1 and incarcerated
in a CDCR adult institution who was released to
parole, discharged after being paroled, or directly
discharged from CDCR during a defined time period
(recidivism cohort) and subsequently returned to
prison2 during a specified follow-up period (recidivism
period).
Juvenile recidivism is defined as follows:
Youth released from DJJ who returned to DJJ or were
committed to a CDCR adult institution during a
specified follow-up period.
The recidivism rate is calculated using the ratio of the number of
youth or felons in the recidivism cohort who were returned to
State-level custody during the recidivism period to the total
number of felons in the recidivism cohort, multiplied by 100.
Recidivism
Rate

=

Number Returned
X 100
Recidivism Cohort

Appendices A and B depict recidivism rates using re-arrest and
reconviction, in addition to returns to State-level custody, for
adults and juveniles, respectively. Results for each of these
measures are available for FYs 2002-03 through 2009-10 for
adults, and for FYs 2004-05 through 2009-10 for juveniles.

1
2

Due to reporting limitations, civil addicts are excluded.
This may include individuals who are returned to prison pending
revocation, but whose cases are “continued on parole” or dismissed.

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

3 Methods
This report presents recidivism rates from a three-year follow-up
period for all felons who were released from DAI and youth
released from DJJ between July 1, 2007 and June 30, 2008
(FY 2007-08). The adult cohort includes inmates who were
released to parole for the first time on their current term and
inmates who were directly discharged, as well as inmates who
were released to parole on their current term prior to FY 2007-08,
returned to prison on this term, and were then re-released during
FY 2007-08. The juvenile cohort includes youth who were
released for the first time on their current term as well as those
who were re-released after a return to custody. Figures, charts,
and graphs illustrate the relationship between descriptive
variables (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity, age at parole) and
recidivism rates for adults. Expanded analyses of these variables
are available in Appendix C.

3.1 Data Sources
CDCR Offender-Based Information System (OBIS)
Data were extracted from the CDCR Offender-Based Information
System (OBIS) to identify the adult inmates who were released
during FY 2007-08, as well as to determine which adult and
juvenile releases were returned to prison during the three-year
follow-up period.
Department of Justice (DOJ) Criminal Justice Information System
(CJIS) California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System
(CLETS)
Arrest and conviction data were also derived from the DOJ,
Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS), California Law
Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS), to compute
California Static Risk Assessment (CSRA) recidivism risk scores
at the time of release for adults, and to compute the re-arrest and
reconviction figures for adults and juveniles included in
Appendices A and B.
CDCR Office of Offender Services (OOS)
Offender Substance Abuse Treatment Database (OSAT)
The dataset containing the adult release cohort was matched to
data reported to the CDCR Office of Offender Services (OOS)
Offender Substance Abuse Treatment database (OSAT). The
OSAT is a repository for attendance and completions for
inmates/parolees who participate in the CDCR In-Prison
Substance Abuse Programs (SAPs) and Community-Based SAPs.

5

6

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

CDCR Clark Developmental Disability Automated Tracking
System (CDDATS)
The Clark Developmental Disability Automated Tracking
System (CDDATS) was used to record adult inmates who have
been screened for a developmental disability upon entry into
CDCR and identifies their developmental disability level
designation and housing location as part of the CDCR
Developmental Disability Program (DDP). CDDATS data are
entered by staff at each institution. Although DECS (Disability and
Effective Communications System) is currently the system of
record, CDDATS was the system of record at the time the cohort
was released from CDCR.
Revocation Scheduling and Tracking System (RSTS)
For those adult parolees whose parole was revoked, the CDCR
Revocation Scheduling and Tracking System (RSTS) was used to
identify the type of parole revocations (technical or nontechnical).
Offender-Based Information Tracking System (OBITS)
Data were extracted from the Offender-Based Information
Tracking System (OBITS) to identify which juveniles were
released during FY 2007-08, to determine which youth returned to
DJJ during the follow-up period, and to identify members of the
adult release cohort who had previously been incarcerated at DJJ.

3.2 Data Limitations
Data quality is of paramount importance with any and all data
analyses performed by the CDCR Office of Research. The intent
of this report is to provide summary statistical (aggregate) rather
than individual-level information.
Overall, the aggregate data are robust in that a large number of
records are available for analyses. Within subgroups, however,
the data become less robust as the smaller number of records is
easily influenced by nuances associated with each case.
Consequently, caution must be exercised when interpreting
results that involve a small number of cases. Within this analytical
framework, recidivism rates are only presented for inmate
releases (i.e., denominators) that are greater than or equal to 30.
In addition, recidivism rates are frozen at three years, meaning
that after three years the follow-up period is considered to be
completed and no further analyses are performed. As such,
reported rates may fluctuate slightly for the one- and two-year
rates as data used in subsequent reporting years will likely be
updated, particularly for the arrests and convictions presented in
the Appendix since these data are routinely updated in
accordance with criminal justice system processing.

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

As with all data, as more information becomes known or as the
information becomes updated, the analyses are updated
accordingly within the parameters specified in this report.

4 Adult Institutions
4.1 Release Cohort Description
Nearly 60 percent of the release cohort was made up of first
releases while 42.3 percent were re-releases. Many of the
distributions for the personal and offender characteristics of first
releases were similar to those of the total recidivism cohort.
Personal Characteristics
A total of 116,015 adult men and women were released from
CDCR adult institutions in FY 2007-08 (Table 1). Males
outnumbered females approximately nine to one. There was a
nearly even distribution of inmates between the age of 20 and 44
at release; few inmates were between the age of 18 and 19
(0.6 percent). After 45 to 49 years of age, the number of inmates
declined; individuals over age 60 represented roughly 1 percent of
the cohort.
The majority of inmates were Hispanic/Latino
(38.2 percent), followed by White (31.5 percent) and Black/African
American (25.8 percent). Less than 5 percent were Native
American/Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
or Other.
Offender Characteristics
The top 12 counties receiving the largest number of parolees are
presented in Table 1, with the remaining counties grouped into the
“All Others” category. The majority of the inmates paroled to
Los Angeles County (25.9 percent). Of the remaining large
counties in California, the top three that received paroled inmates
were San Bernardino (8.6 percent), Orange (7.7 percent), and
San Diego (6.4 percent). The bottom three were Santa Clara
(3.0 percent), San Joaquin (2.4 percent), and Ventura
(1.5 percent). In the previous “2011 Adult Institutions Outcome
Evaluation Report,” Stanislaus was depicted since it had a release
population within the top 12 of all county releases. This year,
Stanislaus was replaced by Ventura.
About two-thirds of the FY 2007-08 recidivism cohort include
inmates who had served their current term for a property crime or
a drug crime. Slightly more than 23 percent were committed to
CDCR for a crime against persons and approximately 12 percent
were committed for “other” crimes. Almost all inmates had a
determinate sentence.
Approximately seven percent of the release cohort were required
to register as a sex offender. In addition, 21 percent of the
release cohort were committed for a crime that was considered to

Re-released
felons made up
42.3 percent of
the recidivism
cohort.

7

8

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

be serious and/or violent. These percentages remain consistent
for both first-released and re-released sex offenders and
serious/violent offenders.
Nearly 85 percent of the release cohort had not been enrolled in
any type of mental health treatment program3 while incarcerated
at CDCR. Those designated as Enhanced Outpatient
Program (EOP) made up 5.3 percent of the release cohort and
those assigned to the Correctional Clinical Case Management
System (CCCMS) made up the remaining 10.5 percent.
When assessed for recidivism risk using the CSRA, approximately
54 percent of the inmates released were identified as being at a
high risk for being convicted of a new crime, 27.8 percent were
medium risk, and 16.5 percent were low risk.
Nearly three percent of the cohort were identified as being
previously incarcerated by DJJ. Over 31 percent had never been
incarcerated at DJJ. Nearly 66 percent of the cohort were unable
to be identified either way due to their age and record retention
issues.
CDCR Incarceration Experience
More than half (58.3 percent) of the FY 2007-08 cohort inmates
served 18 months or less in CDCR institutions. Approximately
70 percent who were released for the first time served 18 months
or less in CDCR institutions compared to 43.0 percent of
re-releases who served 18 months or less.

Almost half of the
first releases had
never been
previously
incarcerated at
CDCR.

The majority of the cohort (57.7 percent) is comprised of first
releases with no returns on their current term. Of those with
returns on their current term, many (43.8 percent) had returned
once. Thereafter, the number of returning inmates gradually
decreases.
Almost half (46.3 percent) of the first releases had only one stay in
a CDCR adult institution, and approximately one-fifth
(18.9 percent) of re-releases stayed two times. Regardless of
type of release, 14.3 percent of the FY 2007-08 cohort had 10 or
more stays in CDCR when released.

3

The designations of EOP and CCCMS are CDCR designations and do
not necessarily reflect a clinical (e.g., Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual) mental health diagnosis.

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

Institutional Mission4
Approximately 21 percent of the FY 2007-08 cohort were released
from a Level II institution. Another 28.1 percent were released
from a reception center. Combined, this accounts for almost half
of all releases during FY 2007-08. Among first releases only,
slightly more than 20 percent were released from a Level III or
Level IV institution. Over half of re-releases were released from a
reception center.
The vast majority (94.3 percent) of the release cohort had never
been assigned to a Security Housing Unit (SHU) at any point
during their term, while 5.7 percent has been assigned to a SHU.
Programs
Only 1.5 percent of the release cohort were in the Developmental
Disability Program (DDP).
Over 13 percent of the release cohort had participated in the
Substance Abuse Program (SAP) while incarcerated.
Nearly a quarter (23.0 percent) of the cohort were identified via a
COMPAS assessment as having a substance abuse need while
the remainder of the cohort either had no assessment prior to
release or were assessed and found to have no substance abuse
need.

4

Since inmates are often transferred just prior to release to institutions
close to their release county, the last institution where an inmate spent
at least 30 days prior to being released in FY 2007-08 is the inmate’s
institution of release. The “Under 30 Days” category reflects those
inmates who were not incarcerated in any one institution for at least 30
days prior to release.

9

10

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

Table 1. Cohort Description
First Releases
Characteristics

Re-Releases

Total

N

%

N

%

N

%

Total

66,921

100.0

49,094

100.0

116,015

100.0

Sex
Male
Female

59,099
7,822

88.3
11.7

44,651
4,443

91.0
9.0

103,750
12,265

89.4
10.6

Age at Release
18-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60 and over

622
10,495
13,542
10,461
9,727
8,746
7,103
3,717
1,601
907

0.9
15.7
20.2
15.6
14.5
13.1
10.6
5.6
2.4
1.4

38
5,017
9,939
7,638
7,831
7,591
6,056
3,153
1,206
625

0.1
10.2
20.2
15.6
16.0
15.5
12.3
6.4
2.5
1.3

660
15,512
23,481
18,099
17,558
16,337
13,159
6,870
2,807
1,532

0.6
13.4
20.2
15.6
15.1
14.1
11.3
5.9
2.4
1.3

Race/Ethnicity
White
Hispanic/Latino
Black/African American
Native American/Alaska Native
Asian
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
Other

19,686
28,105
16,003
456
496
87
2,088

29.4
42.0
23.9
0.7
0.7
0.1
3.1

16,889
16,208
13,931
283
614
62
1,107

34.4
33.0
28.4
0.6
1.3
0.1
2.3

36,575
44,313
29,934
739
1,110
149
3,195

31.5
38.2
25.8
0.6
1.0
0.1
2.8

County of Parole
Alameda
Fresno
Kern
Los Angeles
Orange
Riverside
Sacramento
San Bernardino
San Diego
San Joaquin
Santa Clara
Ventura
All Others

2,680
2,188
2,275
21,903
5,849
3,981
3,575
5,570
3,907
1,270
1,714
864
11,121

4.0
3.3
3.4
32.7
8.7
5.9
5.3
8.3
5.8
1.9
2.6
1.3
16.6

2,571
2,756
1,998
8,127
3,070
3,211
2,448
4,430
3,489
1,541
1,741
934
11,518

5.2
5.6
4.1
16.6
6.3
6.5
5.0
9.0
7.1
3.1
3.5
1.9
23.5

5,251
4,944
4,273
30,030
8,919
7,192
6,023
10,000
7,396
2,811
3,455
1,798
22,639

4.5
4.3
3.7
25.9
7.7
6.2
5.2
8.6
6.4
2.4
3.0
1.5
19.5

Commitment Offense
Crime Against Persons
Property Crimes
Drug Crimes
Other Crimes

14,721
21,735
22,017
8,448

22.0
32.5
32.9
12.6

12,460
16,235
14,633
5,766

25.4
33.1
29.8
11.7

27,181
37,970
36,650
14,214

23.4
32.7
31.6
12.3

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

Table1. Cohort Description (continued)
Characteristics

First Releases
N
%

Re-Releases
N
%

Total
N

%

115,959
56

100.0
0.0

Sentence Type
Determinate Sentence Law
Indeterminate Sentence Law

66,870
51

99.9
0.1

49,089
5

100.0
0.0

Sex Offenders
Yes
No

3,859
63,062

5.8
94.2

4,631
44,463

9.4
90.6

8,490
107,525

7.3
92.7

Serious/Violent Offenders
Yes
No

14,017
52,904

20.9
79.1

10,359
38,735

21.1
78.9

24,376
91,639

21.0
79.0

2,611

3.9

3,534

7.2

6,145

5.3

Mental Health
Enhanced Outpatient Program
Correctional Clinical Case
Management System
Crisis Bed
No Mental Health Code
Department Mental Health

5,692

8.5

6,483

13.2

12,175

10.5

9
58,609
0

0.0
87.6
0.0

12
39,064
1

0.0
79.6
0.0

21
97,673
1

0.0
84.2
0.0

CSRA Risk Score
Low
Medium
High
N/A

13,527
20,585
31,540
1,269

20.2
30.8
47.1
1.9

5,592
11,706
30,890
906

11.4
23.8
62.9
1.8

19,119
32,291
62,430
2,175

16.5
27.8
53.8
1.9

Previously in DJJ
Former DJJ
Never in DJJ
Unknown

1,677
22,982
42,262

2.5
34.3
63.2

1,482
13,512
34,100

3.0
27.5
69.5

3,159
36,494
76,362

2.7
31.5
65.8

Length of Stay
0 - 6 months
7 - 12 months
13 - 18 months
19 - 24 months
2 - 3 years
3 - 4 years
4 - 5 years
5 - 10 years
10 - 15 years
15 + years

9,937
25,400
11,110
6,473
5,898
2,570
1,754
2,845
802
132

14.8
38.0
16.6
9.7
8.8
3.8
2.6
4.3
1.2
0.2

2,436
8,366
10,313
8,339
9,867
4,230
1,912
3,043
503
85

5.0
17.0
21.0
17.0
20.1
8.6
3.9
6.2
1.0
0.2

12,373
33,766
21,423
14,812
15,765
6,800
3,666
5,888
1,305
217

10.7
29.1
18.5
12.8
13.6
5.9
3.2
5.1
1.1
0.2

Prior Returns to Custody
None
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10+

66,921
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0
21,511
11,484
6,917
4,139
2,308
1,302
690
386
187
170

0.0
43.8
23.4
14.1
8.4
4.7
2.7
1.4
0.8
0.4
0.3

66,921
21,511
11,484
6,917
4,139
2,308
1,302
690
386
187
170

57.7
18.5
9.9
6.0
3.6
2.0
1.1
0.6
0.3
0.2
0.1

11

12

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

Table 1. Cohort Description (continued)
Characteristics

First Releases
N
%

Re-Releases
N
%

Total
N

%

Number of CDCR Stays Ever
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 +

30,981
8,485
5,439
4,106
3,436
2,822
2,258
1,959
1,548
1,263
954
779
596
501
1,794

46.3
12.7
8.1
6.1
5.1
4.2
3.4
2.9
2.3
1.9
1.4
1.2
0.9
0.7
2.7

0
9,264
7,362
5,853
4,594
3,552
2,988
2,534
2,219
1,863
1,556
1,251
1,106
914
4,038

0.0
18.9
15.0
11.9
9.4
7.2
6.1
5.2
4.5
3.8
3.2
2.5
2.3
1.9
8.2

30,981
17,749
12,801
9,959
8,030
6,374
5,246
4,493
3,767
3,126
2,510
2,030
1,702
1,415
5,832

26.7
15.3
11.0
8.6
6.9
5.5
4.5
3.9
3.2
2.7
2.2
1.7
1.5
1.2
5.0

Institutional Mission
Level I
Level II
Level III
Level IV
Female Institutions
Camps
Reception Centers
Other Facilities
Under 30 days

12,310
16,885
7,500
6,074
5,545
2,877
6,074
9,076
580

18.4
25.2
11.2
9.1
8.3
4.3
9.1
13.6
0.9

5,409
7,648
2,364
1,905
2,975
1
26,470
2,317
5

11.0
15.6
4.8
3.9
6.1
0.0
53.9
4.7
0.0

17,719
24,533
9,864
7,979
8,520
2,878
32,544
11,393
585

15.3
21.1
8.5
6.9
7.3
2.5
28.1
9.8
0.5

Security Housing Unit (SHU)
Status
SHU
No SHU

3,272
63,649

4.9
95.1

3,331
45,763

6.8
93.2

6,603
109,412

5.7
94.3

Developmental Disability
Program (DDP) Status
Developmentally Disabled
Not Developmentally Disabled

764
66,157

1.1
98.9

929
48,165

1.9
98.1

In-Prison
Substance Abuse Program
Participated in Program
Did Not Participate in Program

11,551
55,370

17.3
82.7

4,147
44,947

8.4
91.6

15,698
100,317

13.5
86.5

19,902

29.7

6,738

13.7

26,640

23.0

47,019

70.3

42,356

86.3

89,375

77.0

COMPAS Assessment and
Substance Abuse Need
Assessment Indicates a
Substance Abuse Need
No Assessment/No Substance
Abuse Need Indicated

1,693
114,322

1.5
98.5

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

4.2 Overall CDCR Adult Recidivism Rate

Inmates released
from CDCR in
FY 2007-08
have a
63.7 percent
three-year
recidivism rate.

Figure 1. Overall Recidivism Rates: First Releases,
Re-Releases and Total
100%
90%
80%

75.4%
71.8%

70%
59.2%
55.1%
47.4%

50%
40%

63.7%

60.4%

60%

49.9%

37.9%

30%
20%
10%
0%
One Year

Two Years
First Releases

Re-Releases

Three Years
Total

Figure 1 and Table 2 show the total three-year recidivism rate for
the FY 2007-08 cohort is 63.7 percent. The recidivism rate for
re-releases is 20.3 percentage points higher than for first releases.
When examining the recidivism rates as time progresses, most
inmates who return to prison do so in the first year after release.
The overall recidivism rate for the FY 2007-08 cohort is
1.4 percentage points lower than the FY 2006-07 cohort. This
reduction is primarily due to the reduction in the recidivism rates
for the first releases, which decreased by 1.8 percentage points,
although there was also a small (1.0 percentage point) reduction
for those who were re-releases.

Re-releases
recidivate at a
higher rate than
first-releases.

13

14

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

Table 2. Overall Recidivism Rates: First releases, Re-Releases and Total
One Year

Total
Released

Number
Returned

Two Years, Cumulative Three Years, Cumulative

Recidivism
Rate

Number
Returned

Recidivism
Rate

Number
Returned

First Releases

66,921

25,373

37.9%

33,418

49.9%

36,875

55.1%

Re-Releases

49,094

29,676

60.4%

35,225

71.8%

37,010

75.4%

116,015

55,049

47.4%

68,643

59.2%

73,885

63.7%

Total

4.3 Time to Return

Almost 50 percent
of inmates who
recidivate within
three years do so
within the first
six months.

This “Time to Return” section only examines the 73,885 inmates
who returned to prison within three years of release (identified
previously in Figure 1 and Table 2) to assess how long inmates
are in the community before recidivating and returning to prison.

4.3.1 Time to Return for the 73,885 Recidivists
Figure 2. Three-Year Quarterly and Cumulative Rate of Return Post
Release
98.6%

100%

n = 73,885 Recidivists

92.9%

95.2%

100.0%

97.1%

90.0%

90%

86.3%
81.6%

80%
74.5%

At one year, this
rate increases to
almost 75 percent.

Recidivism
Rate

70%
63.3%

60%
50%

47.2%

40%
30%
25.0%

20%

22.1%
16.2%

10%
11.2%
7.1%

0%
1st

2nd

3rd

4.7%

3.7%

2.9%

4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
Quarters (Three-Month Periods) After Release

Percent Recidivating Each Quarter

1.9%

2.3%

10th

Cumulative Percent Recidivating

1.5%

11th

1.4%

12th

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

Figure 2 and Table 3 illustrate the percentage of inmates who
recidivate during each quarterly (three-month) period, as well as
the total percent of inmates who had recidivated through the end
of the quarter.
Of the 73,885 inmates who return to prison, nearly equal
percentages return during the first quarter and the second quarter
(25.0 and 22.1 percent, respectively). Altogether, nearly half
(approximately 47 percent) of the inmates released returned to
prison after having been in the community for only six months.
Almost 75 percent of the recidivists returned to prison within
12 months of release.
The number of inmates recidivating over time decreases as most
recidivists have already returned to prison by the end of the first
year. Since this analysis only focuses on those inmates identified
as recidivists, and because few individuals returned to prison
within the final months of the follow-up period, the 12th quarter
represents the final, cumulative results (i.e., 100 percent) of the
73,885 recidivists.
Collectively, these results mirror those
previously reported for the FY 2005-06 and 2006-07 cohorts.
Table 3. Three-Year Quarterly and Cumulative Rate of Return Post
Release
2nd

3rd

5th

6th

7th

8th

9th

Percentage of Recidivists

25.0%

1st

22.1%

16.2%

11.2%

4th

7.1%

4.7%

3.7%

2.9%

2.3%

10th

1.9%

Cumulative Percent

25.0%

47.2%

63.3%

74.5%

81.6%

86.3%

90.0%

92.9%

95.2%

97.1%

4.4 Adult Recidivism Rate by Demographics
Demographics include the following personal characteristics of
felons: gender, age at time of release, race/ethnicity, and county
of parole. Research has shown that recidivism varies by some of
these demographic factors, and these findings are corroborated
by the data provided below.

11th

1.5%

12th

1.4%

98.6% 100.0%

15

16

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

4.4.1 Gender
Figure 3. Recidivism Rates by Gender
100%

Females
recidivate at a
lower rate than
males.

90%
80%
70%

65.0%
60.5%

63.7%

59.2%

60%

52.9%

50%
40%

48.7%

48.2%

47.4%
37.1%

30%
20%
10%
0%
One Year

Two Years
Male

Female

Three Years
Total

Because males outnumber females almost nine to one in the
FY 2007-08 cohort, gender differences in rates of recidivism are
masked. It is important, therefore, to examine male and female
recidivism rates separately. As shown in Figure 3 and Table 4,
recidivism rates are considerably lower for females compared to
males. By the end of three years, the recidivism rate for females
is approximately 12 percentage points lower than that of males.
Males and females who were released for the first time recidivate
at lower rates than those who were re-released, with female first
releases and re-releases recidivating at lower rates than males.
There is a 19.5 percentage point difference in the recidivism rate
between first-released and re-released males. Females have a
24.4 percentage point difference in the recidivism rate between
first and re-releases. Females who were re-released recidivate at
a rate approximately eight percentage points lower than their male
counterparts. Both males and females experienced a small
decline in recidivism rates from those reported for the FY 2006-07
cohort.

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

Table 4. Recidivism Rates by Gender
First Releases
Number
Released
59,099
7,822
66,921

Gender
Male
Female
Total

Number
Returned
33,428
3,447
36,875

Re‐Releases
Recidivism
Rate
56.6%
44.1%
55.1%

Number
Released
44,651
4,443
49,094

Number
Returned
33,966
3,044
37,010

Total
Recidivism
Rate
76.1%
68.5%
75.4%

Number
Released
103,750
12,265
116,015

Number
Returned
67,394
6,491
73,885

Recidivism
Rate
65.0%
52.9%
63.7%

4.4.2 Age at Release
Figure 4. Three-Year Recidivism Rates by Age at Release
100%
90%
80%

75.2%     
70.1%     

70%

66.7%     
62.2%     

63.0%     

63.2%     

60.9%     

60%

57.9%     
53.7%     

50%

46.5%     

40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
18‐19

20‐24

25‐29

30‐34

35‐39
40‐44
Age Groups

45‐49

50‐54

55‐59

60 +

The overall recidivism rate for inmates released in
FY 2007-08 declines with age. Felons in the 18 to 19 year-old
group have a 75.2 percent recidivism rate and those ages 60 and
older have a 46.5 percent recidivism rate (Figure 4 and Table 5).
The exception is a 0.8 percentage point increase from the 30 to
34 year-old age group to the 35 to 39 year-old age group and an
even smaller increase, 0.2 percentage points, from the 35 to
39 year-old age group to the 40 to 44 year-old age group.
Thereafter, the declining trend in the recidivism rate resumes.
The pattern in the recidivism rate for each age group within first
and re-releases mirrors that of the total recidivism rate
(i.e., the gradual decline over time with the exception of the
increased recidivism rate for the 35 to 39 age group and the 40 to
44 age group).

In general,
recidivism rates
decrease
with age.

17

18

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

When compared to FY 2006-07 cohort first releases, FY 2007-08
cohort first releases reflect a reduction in recidivism rates that
range from 0.9 to 2.4 percentage points across all but one age
group. This exception is the 50 to 54 age group, which has a
0.6 percentage point recidivism rate increase. The FY 2007-08
re-release cohort reflects a similar pattern of reduction in
recidivism rates across most age groups, with the exception of
increases found in three age groups. The 18 to 19 year age group
had the largest increase in their recidivism rate (nearly eight
percentage points), followed by the 60+ age group with a
2.6 increase and the 55 to 59 age group with a 1.4 percentage
points increase.
Table 5. Recidivism Rates by Age Group
First Releases
Age
Groups
18-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60 +
Total

Number
Released
622
10,495
13,542
10,461
9,727
8,746
7,103
3,717
1,601
907
66,921

Number
Returned
460
6,772
7,991
5,514
5,158
4,613
3,573
1,783
683
328
36,875

Re‐Releases
Recidivism
Rate
74.0%
64.5%
59.0%
52.7%
53.0%
52.7%
50.3%
48.0%
42.7%
36.2%
55.1%

Number
Released
38
5,017
9,939
7,638
7,831
7,591
6,056
3,153
1,206
625
49,094

Number
Returned
36
4,105
7,673
5,742
5,910
5,706
4,435
2,194
825
384
37,010

Total
Recidivism
Rate
94.7%
81.8%
77.2%
75.2%
75.5%
75.2%
73.2%
69.6%
68.4%
61.4%
75.4%

Number
Released
660
15,512
23,481
18,099
17,558
16,337
13,159
6,870
2,807
1,532
116,015

Number
Returned
496
10,877
15,664
11,256
11,068
10,319
8,008
3,977
1,508
712
73,885

Recidivism
Rate
75.2%
70.1%
66.7%
62.2%
63.0%
63.2%
60.9%
57.9%
53.7%
46.5%
63.7%

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

4.4.3 Race/Ethnicity
Figure 5. Three-Year Recidivism Rates by Race/Ethnicity

100%
90%
80%
70%

71.5%     

69.8%     
65.9%     
58.1%     

60%

57.2%     

54.4%     

57.5%     

50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
White

Hispanic/
Latino

Black/
African‐American

Asian

Native American/ Native Hawaiian/
Alaska Native
Pacific Islander

Others

Figure 5 and Table 6 show the three-year recidivism rates for all
releases are highest among White, Black/African-American, and
Native American/Alaska Native race/ethnicity groups, ranging from
65.9 percent to 71.5 percent. The overall recidivism rate for all
other race/ethnicity groups is roughly 57 percent.
Although small in number, the Native American/Alaska Native and
Asian first and re-release groups recidivate at rates slightly higher
than the other race/ethnicity groups. Moreover, the recidivism rate
for first releases who are Hispanic/Latino (the largest group
represented in the cohort) is over 10 percentage points lower than
that of all other race/ethncity groups combined (49.3 percent
versus 59.3 percent).
The “2011 Adult Institutions Outcome Evaluation Report” showed
that recidivism rates by race/ethnicity for the FY 2006-07 cohort
did not vary between first releases and re-releases. This finding is
not evident for the FY 2007-08 cohort as the recidivism rates
decreased overall within first releases and within re-releases. The
decreases, however, were much larger within the first releases
group.
Comparison of the FY 2006-07 and FY 2007-08 cohort first
releases shows declines in recidivism rates for all ethnic groups
with the exception of “Others” which had a 1.4 percentage point

Total three-year
recidivism rates
are highest
among White,
Black/AfricanAmerican, and
Native American/
Alaska Native
race/ethnicity
groups.

19

20

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

Recidivism rates
for race/ethnicity
vary by
first releases and
re-releases.

increase. Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders had the largest
decline in recidivism rates followed by Asian and then
Black/African American (-8.4, -2.8, and -2.4 percentage points,
respectively).
The recidivism rates for both Native
American/Alaska Native and Black/African-American groups
remain quite similar.
For FY 2007-08 re-releases, the Native American/Alaska Native
group still had the highest recidivism rate (78.7 percent), but the
lowest switched from Asian to Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander. In
fact, the Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander re-release group had the
greatest decrease in their recidivism rate as compared to the
FY 2006-07 cohort (-4.1 percentage points). Asian re-releases
had a recidivism rate that was 2.5 percentage points higher than
that which was reported for FY 2006-07.
Table 6. Recidivism Rates By Race/Ethnicity
First Releases

Race/Ethnicity
White
Hispanic/Latino
Black/African-American
Asian
Native American/Alaska Native
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
Others
Total

Number
Released
19,686
28,105
16,003
456
496
87
2,088
66,921

Number
Returned
11,350
13,866
10,055
220
311
38
1,035
36,875

Re‐Releases
Recidivism
Rate
57.7%
49.3%
62.8%
48.2%
62.7%
43.7%
49.6%
55.1%

Number
Released
16,889
16,208
13,931
283
614
62
1,107
49,094

Number
Returned
12,754
11,882
10,843
203
483
43
802
37,010

Total
Recidivism
Rate
75.5%
73.3%
77.8%
71.7%
78.7%
69.4%
72.4%
75.4%

Number
Released
36,575
44,313
29,934
739
1,110
149
3,195
116,015

Number
Returned
24,104
25,748
20,898
423
794
81
1,837
73,885

Recidivism
Rate
65.9%
58.1%
69.8%
57.2%
71.5%
54.4%
57.5%
63.7%

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report

21

October 2012

4.4.4 County of Parole5
Figure 6. Three-Year Recidivism Rates by County
Los Angeles

54.0%

Orange

54.7%

Sacramento

Statewide Recidivism Rate
63.7%

59.5%

Alameda

Recidivism rates may
66.2%
vary by county due to
a number of factors:
69.7%
program availability,
69.7%
local jail
70.1%
overcrowding, level of
70.9%
community support for
71.2%
offenders,
73.9%
cost avoidance,
75.1%
prosecutorial
77.5%
discretion, community
characteristics, and
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
variability in law
enforcement and
Board of Parole
of all inmates who were
into Los Angeles County,
Hearings practices.
60.5%

Santa Clara
ALL OTHERS
San Diego
Riverside
San Bernardino
Kern
Fresno
Ventura
San Joaquin
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Despite the fact that over a quarter
paroled in FY 2007-08 were released
the Los Angeles County recidivism rate (54.0 percent) is the
lowest of the twelve counties with the largest number of releases
(see Figure 6 and Table 7). San Joaquin, Ventura, and Fresno
counties have the highest overall three-year recidivism rates,
ranging from 73.9 percent to 77.5 percent.
As shown throughout the report, re-released inmates generally
have higher recidivism rates than those released for the first time.
This may also explain Los Angeles County’s lower recidivism rate
as it received roughly two times as many first-release as rerelease inmates. This large proportion of first-release inmates
(and their low rate of recidivism) reduced the overall recidivism
rate for inmates released to Los Angeles County.
The difference in the recidivism rate between first-release inmates
and re-release inmates varies greatly by county. Alameda County
has the widest range (32.1 percentage points), with first-release
inmates recidivating at a rate of 44.8 percent and re-releases

5

Direct discharges are not included since these individuals do not have a
parole county.

22

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

recidivating at a rate of 76.9 percent. Kern County has the
narrowest range (10.5 percentage points), with first-release
inmates recidivating at a rate of 66.3 percent and re-releases
recidivating at a rate of 76.8 percent.
Minor changes in recidivism rates have occurred since data were
reported for the FY 2006-07 cohort. The overall trend across
counties was a reduction in recidivism rates from FY 2006-07 to
FY 2007-08.
While two counties showed minor increases
(Kern +0.9 and Riverside +0.8 percentage points, respectively),
the majority of counties showed a decrease ranging from -0.1 to
-3.0 percentage points.
First releases experienced recidivism rate decreases across most
counties, with Santa Clara having the greatest decrease
(-4.5 percentage points). The exception was Riverside and Kern
counties, which each had a slight increase in the recidivism rate
(+0.2 and +2.1, respectively). Recidivism rate decreases also
occurred for most re-releases, although there were slight
increases
for
Riverside
and
Santa
Clara
counties
(+0.4 and +0.7 percentage points, respectively).
Note that these results represent the county to which the inmates
were paroled; however, inmates may not have remained in the
county to which they were paroled. In addition, inmates may
recidivate in a county other than that of his/her parole. In such
cases, the recidivism is still counted in the parole county.
Table 7. Recidivism Rates by County6
First Releases
County of
Commitment
Alameda
Fresno
Kern
Los Angeles
Orange
Riverside
Sacramento
San Bernardino
San Diego
San Joaquin
Santa Clara
Ventura
All Others
Total

Number
Paroled
2,680
2,188
2,275
21,903
5,849
3,981
3,575
5,570
3,907
1,270
1,714
864
11,121
66,897

Number
Returned
1,201
1,463
1,509
10,605
2,648
2,518
1,666
3,541
2,437
902
998
580
6,802
36,870

6

Re‐Releases
Recidivism
Rate
44.8%
66.9%
66.3%
48.4%
45.3%
63.3%
46.6%
63.6%
62.4%
71.0%
58.2%
67.1%
61.2%
55.1%

Number
Paroled
2,571
2,756
1,998
8,127
3,070
3,211
2,448
4,430
3,489
1,541
1,741
934
11,518
47,834

Number
Returned
1,978
2,189
1,534
5,616
2,229
2,526
1,916
3,546
2,721
1,276
1,288
771
8,988
36,578

Total
Recidivism
Rate
76.9%
79.4%
76.8%
69.1%
72.6%
78.7%
78.3%
80.0%
78.0%
82.8%
74.0%
82.5%
78.0%
76.5%

Number
Paroled
5,251
4,944
4,273
30,030
8,919
7,192
6,023
10,000
7,396
2,811
3,455
1,798
22,639
114,731

Number
Returned
3,179
3,652
3,043
16,221
4,877
5,044
3,582
7,087
5,158
2,178
2,286
1,351
15,790
73,448

Direct discharges are not included since these individuals do not have a
parole county.

Recidivism
Rate
60.5%
73.9%
71.2%
54.0%
54.7%
70.1%
59.5%
70.9%
69.7%
77.5%
66.2%
75.1%
69.7%
64.0%

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

4.5 Adult Offender Characteristics
Offender characteristics include the categories for the controlling
crime of the current term; sentence type; special classifications of
inmates including registered sex offenders, serious or violent
offenders, mental health status, substance abuse program
participation; risk to reoffend, as measured by the California Static
Risk Assessment (CSRA) at the time of release; and prior
involvement in the California Division of Juvenile Justice system.

4.5.1 Commitment Offense Category
Figure 7. Recidivism Rates by Commitment Offense Category

100%
90%
80%
70%

67.8%
62.3%

63.3%

60%
50%

57.5%

61.5% 60.9%

57.1% 56.6%

51.3%
46.0%

45.5% 44.9%

40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
One Year
Crime Against Persons

Two Years
Property Crimes

Three Years
Drug Crimes

Other Crimes

Figure 7 and Table 8 reveal that inmates committed for property
crimes have the highest overall, three-year recidivism rate. Over
half of the inmates released with a property crime commitment
recidivated within the first year of release and 67.8 percent
recidivated within three years of their release. Inmates committed
for crimes against persons, drug crimes, or other offenses
recidivate at an almost identical lower rate, whether it was at one,
two, or three years of follow-up.
Re-release inmates with drug crime commitments have a
recidivism rate that is 22.6 percentage points higher than firstrelease inmates with a drug crime commitment (75.1 percent
versus 52.5 percent, respectively). Similarly, re-releases with a

At 67.8 percent,
inmates
committed to
CDCR for
property crimes
have the highest
three-year
recidivism rate.

23

24

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

crime against a person commitment have a three-year recidivism
rate that is approximately 19.3 percentage points higher than first
releases with a crime against a person commitment (72.8 versus
53.5 percent, respectively).
There were slight declines (up to 2.4 percent) in the recidivism
rates by Commitment Offense Category for first releases,
re-releases, and overall groupings from the FY 2006-07 cohort to
the FY 2007-08 cohort.
Table 8. Recidivism Rates by Commitment Offense Category
First Releases
Offense Categories
Crime Against Persons
Property Crimes
Drug Crimes
Other Crimes
Total

Number
Released
14,721
21,735
22,017
8,448
66,921

Number
Returned
7,879
12,997
11,553
4,446
36,875

Re‐Releases
Recidivism
Rate
53.5%
59.8%
52.5%
52.6%
55.1%

Number
Released
12,460
16,235
14,633
5,766
49,094

Number
Returned
9,065
12,740
10,995
4,210
37,010

Total
Recidivism
Rate
72.8%
78.5%
75.1%
73.0%
75.4%

Number
Released
27,181
37,970
36,650
14,214
116,015

Number
Returned
16,944
25,737
22,548
8,656
73,885

Recidivism
Rate
62.3%
67.8%
61.5%
60.9%
63.7%

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

4.5.2 Commitment Offense7891011
Figure 8. Three-Year Recidivism Rates by Commitment Offense
Vehicular Manslaughter

34.8%

Sodomy

40.4%

Driving Under Influence

42.2%

Marijuana Other⁷

42.3%

Manslaughter

42.5%

CS Manufacturing⁸

46.1%

Attempted Murder Second

48.0%

Lewd Act With Child

48.0%

Kidnapping

48.4%

Rape

52.0%

CS Possession for Sale

53.5%

Marijuana Possession for Sale

53.9%

CS Sales

56.0%

Marijuana Sale

56.2%

Arson

56.5%

Sexual Penetration with Object

56.8%

Forgery/Fraud

57.1%

Grand Theft

61.5%

Assault with Deadly Weapon

62.4%

Other Offenses⁹

63.1%

Robbery

63.3%

Burglary ‐ First Degree

65.2%

Other Assault/Battery

65.2%

Escape/Abscond

65.4%

Other Property

65.8%

Hashish Possession

65.8%

Oral Copulation

66.5%

CS Other¹⁰

66.6%

CS Possession

67.5%

Burglary ‐ Second Degree

67.8%

Possession Weapon

67.9%

Receiving Stolen Property

70.2%

Petty Theft With Prior

71.3%

Vehicle Theft

72.8%

Other Sex Offenses¹¹

73.9%
0%

7

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Other marijuana offenses include planting, cultivating, harvesting, or processing marijuana; hiring,
employing, using a minor in the unlawful transportation, sale, or peddling of marijuana to another
minor; furnishing, giving, offering marijuana to a minor.
8
CS is an abbreviation for “Controlled Substance.”
9
“Other Offenses” include false imprisonment, accessory, and malicious harassment.
10
“CS Other offenses” include possession of CS in State prison; soliciting, encouraging, inducing a
minor to furnish, sell, offer a CS; agreeing, consenting, offering to sell, furnish, and/or transport a CS.
11
“Other Sex Offenses” include failing to register as a sex offender, unlawful sex with a minor, and
indecent exposure.

25

26

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

The seriousness
of an inmate’s
commitment crime
is often inversely
related to his/her
recidivism risk.

Figure 8 and Table 9 show the top three highest three-year
recidivism rates for all releases occurs for inmates who were
committed to a CDCR adult institution for other sex offenses,
vehicle theft, and petty theft with a prior (ranging from 71.3 to
73.9 percent). The lowest three recidivism rates for all releases
occur for inmates committed to CDCR for vehicular manslaughter,
sodomy, and driving under the influence (ranging from 34.8 to
42.2 percent). Inmates committed for more serious crimes do not
have higher recidivism rates. For example, approximately
72.8 percent of inmates convicted of vehicle theft recidivate within
three years, whereas approximately 52.0 percent of inmates
convicted of rape recidivate within three years.
There are also differences when examining commitment offense
grouping by type of release. Despite their commitment crime, all
re-releases have at least a 56 percent recidivism rate ranging from
as low as 56.6 percent (manslaughter) to 84.4 percent (hashish
possession). However, such a broad statement cannot be made
for first releases due to the wide range in their recidivism rates,
which vary by as much as 41.6 percentage points. Sodomy is the
lowest at 25.0 percent and other sex offenses is the highest at
66.6 percent.
Comparison to the FY 2006-07 cohort shows overall declines in
the FY 2007-08 cohort recidivism rates across most of the
offenses. The largest overall decline was for oral copulation
(-7.8 percentage points) and the largest overall increase was for
marijuana other (+8.0 percentage points). With respect to first
releases, the largest decline was for oral copulation
(-5.2 percentage points); however, the recidivism rates increased
slightly for many offense categories with the largest increase seen
for marijuana sale (+11.6 percentage points). For re-releases, the
largest decline was for sexual penetration with object
(-13.2 percentage points); however, the recidivism rates increased
for several offenses [ranging from other property (+0.3 percentage
points) to manslaughter (+10.2 percentage points)].

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

Table 9. Recidivism Rates by Commitment Offense121314151617
First Releases
Offense
Murder First
Murder Second
Attempted Murder First
Vehicular Manslaughter
Sodomy
Driving Under Influence
Marijuana Other13
Manslaughter
CS Manufacturing14
Attempted Murder Second
Lewd Act With Child
Kidnapping
Rape
CS Possession for Sale
Marijuana Possession for Sale
CS Sales
Marijuana Sale
Arson
Sexual Penetration with Object
Forgery/Fraud
Grand Theft
Assault with Deadly Weapon
Other Offenses 15
Robbery
Burglary - First Degree
Other Assault/Battery
Escape/Abscond
Other Property
Hashish Possession
Oral Copulation
CS Other16
CS Possession
Burglary - Second Degree
Possession Weapon
Receiving Stolen Property
Petty Theft With Prior
Vehicle Theft
Other Sex Offenses 17
Total

12

13

14
15

16

17

Number
Released
9
27
7
187
32
2,115
98
359
360
237
1,095
133
215
6,765
760
2,231
272
179
69
2,109
2,188
3,339
2,212
2,926
1,964
4,899
49
734
47
65
386
11,098
4,309
3,893
2,927
3,175
4,329
1,122
66,921

Number
Returned
1
3
1
47
8
690
26
127
96
84
407
45
83
3,030
343
1,039
114
81
29
980
1,151
1,813
1,189
1,656
1,112
2,790
24
423
25
38
223
6,657
2,572
2,462
1,861
2,035
2,863
747
36,875

Re‐Releases
Recidivism
Rate
N/A
N/A
N/A
25.1%
25.0%
32.6%
26.5%
35.4%
26.7%
35.4%
37.2%
33.8%
38.6%
44.8%
45.1%
46.6%
41.9%
45.3%
42.0%
46.5%
52.6%
54.3%
53.8%
56.6%
56.6%
57.0%
49.0%
57.6%
53.2%
58.5%
57.8%
60.0%
59.7%
63.2%
63.6%
64.1%
66.1%
66.6%
55.1%

Number
Released
1
2
2
66
15
831
51
182
284
107
866
90
181
3,321
393
1,177
191
136
49
1,397
1,427
2,683
1,930
2,198
1,542
4,550
81
522
32
96
335
8,849
3,072
2,788
2,234
2,770
3,271
1,372
49,094

Number
Returned
0
0
1
41
11
553
37
103
201
81
535
63
123
2,366
278
869
146
97
38
1,021
1,074
1,943
1,425
1,590
1,173
3,372
61
403
27
69
257
6,814
2,432
2,074
1,760
2,204
2,673
1,095
37,010

Total
Recidivism
Rate
N/A
N/A
N/A
62.1%
N/A
66.5%
72.5%
56.6%
70.8%
75.7%
61.8%
70.0%
68.0%
71.2%
70.7%
73.8%
76.4%
71.3%
77.6%
73.1%
75.3%
72.4%
73.8%
72.3%
76.1%
74.1%
75.3%
77.2%
84.4%
71.9%
76.7%
77.0%
79.2%
74.4%
78.8%
79.6%
81.7%
79.8%
75.4%

Recidivism rates were not calculated when fewer than 30 inmates
were released.
Other marijuana offenses include planting, cultivating, harvesting, or
processing marijuana; hiring, employing, using a minor in the unlawful
transportation, sale, or peddling of marijuana to another minor;
furnishing, giving, offering marijuana to a minor.
CS is an abbreviation for “Controlled Substance.”
“Other Offenses” include false imprisonment, accessory, and
malicious harassment.
“CS Other offenses” include possession of CS in State prison;
soliciting, encouraging, inducing a minor to furnish, sell, offer a CS;
agreeing, consenting, offering to sell, furnish, and/or transport a CS.
“Other Sex Offenses” include failing to register as a sex offender,
unlawful sex with a minor, and indecent exposure.

Number
Released
10
29
9
253
47
2,946
149
541
644
344
1,961
223
396
10,086
1,153
3,408
463
315
118
3,506
3,615
6,022
4,142
5,124
3,506
9,449
130
1,256
79
161
721
19,947
7,381
6,681
5,161
5,945
7,600
2,494
116,015

Number
Returned
1
3
2
88
19
1,243
63
230
297
165
942
108
206
5,396
621
1,908
260
178
67
2,001
2,225
3,756
2,614
3,246
2,285
6,162
85
826
52
107
480
13,471
5,004
4,536
3,621
4,239
5,536
1,842
73,885

Recidivism
Rate
N/A
N/A
N/A
34.8%
40.4%
42.2%
42.3%
42.5%
46.1%
48.0%
48.0%
48.4%
52.0%
53.5%
53.9%
56.0%
56.2%
56.5%
56.8%
57.1%
61.5%
62.4%
63.1%
63.3%
65.2%
65.2%
65.4%
65.8%
65.8%
66.5%
66.6%
67.5%
67.8%
67.9%
70.2%
71.3%
72.8%
73.9%
63.7%

27

28

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

4.5.3 Sentence Type
Figure 9. Recidivism Rates by Sentence Type
100%

Although few in
number, inmates
released after
having served an
indeterminate
sentence
recidivate at a
much lower rate
(14.3 percent) than
those who served
a determinate
sentence
(63.7 percent).

90%
80%
70%
63.7%
59.2%

60%
50%
40%

N=73,877

N=68,638

47.5%
N=55,044

30%
20%
14.3%

10%

8.9%

8.9%

N=5

N=5

N=8

0%
One Year
Determinate Sentence Law

Two Years

Three Years
Indeterminate Sentence Law

California’s Determinate Sentencing Law18 had been in effect for
about 30 years by the time the inmates in this FY 2007-08 cohort
were released. As a result, the vast majority of individuals who
were released served a determinate sentence. Only 56 of the
116,015 inmates released during FY 2007-08 served an
indeterminate sentence. Generally, inmates serving an
indeterminate term are released only after the Board of Parole
Hearings has found them to be suitable for parole. This differs
from offenders sentenced to a determinate term, who are released
once they have served their sentence regardless of their suitability
for parole. Those who served an indeterminate sentence are,
therefore, less likely to recidivate. In addition, these offenders are
more likely to be older than those who served a determinate
sentence and age is generally negatively correlated with
recidivism (see Section 7.2).
Figure 9 and Table 10 show that inmates who were released after
having served an indeterminate sentence recidivated at a rate that
was much lower than those who served a determinate sentence
(14.3 percent versus 63.7 percent, respectively).
Because they represent a small number of releases, we are able
to follow-up on those with indeterminate sentences in more detail.

18

The Uniform Determinative Sentencing Act was enacted by the
California Legislature in 1976.

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report

29

October 2012

Of the eight offenders who returned to prison within three years,
three were returned pending revocation and were subsequently
released and “continued on parole.”
Table 10. Recidivism Rates by Sentence Type19
First Releases
Sentence Type
Determinate Sentence Law
Indeterminate Sentence Law
Total

Number
Released
66,870
51
66,921

Number
Returned
36,869
6
36,875

Re‐Releases
Recidivism
Rate
55.1%
11.8%
55.1%

Number
Released
49,089
5
49,094

Number
Returned
37,008
2
37,010

Total
Recidivism
Rate
75.4%
NA
75.4%

Number
Released
115,959
56
116,015

Number
Returned
73,877
8
73,885

Recidivism
Rate
63.7%
14.3%
63.7%

4.5.4 Sex Registrants
Figure 10. Recidivism Rates by Sex Registration Flag
100%
90%
80%
69.1%

70%
60%
50%

64.9%

63.3%
58.7%

55.5%
46.8%

40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
One Year

Two Years
Sex Registration Flag

Three Years

No Sex Registration Flag

Figure 10 and Table 11 show that for total releases, the three-year
recidivism rate for offenders required to register as a sex offender
(sex registrants) is 5.8 percentage points higher than those who
are not. Sex registrants have a slightly higher recidivism rate than
non-registrants for first releases and re-releases (5.1 percentage
points and 1.6 percentage points, respectively).
The three-year recidivism rate increased 2.2 percentage points for
sex registrants from FY 2006-07 to FY2007-08. Conversely, the
rate for non-registrants decreased 1.7 percentage points.

19

Recidivism rates were not calculated when fewer than 30 inmates were
released.

Offenders who are
required to register
as a sex offender
have a slightly
higher recidivism
rate than those
who are not.

30

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

Examination into this finding reveals that across the three years,
the greatest increase occurred in the one-year recidivism rates for
sex registrants (+4.2 percentage points). As reported previously,
this may be an artifact of CDCR policies related to Jessica’s Law,
passed in November 2006, which led to increased supervision of
sex registrants.
Table 11. Recidivism Rates by Sex Registration Flag
First Releases
Sex Registration
Flag
Yes
No
Total

Number
Released
3,859
63,062
66,921

Number
Returned
2,312
34,563
36,875

Re-Releases
Recidivism
Rate
59.9%
54.8%
55.1%

Number
Released
4,631
44,463
49,094

Number
Returned
3,558
33,452
37,010

Total
Recidivism
Rate
76.8%
75.2%
75.4%

Number
Released
8,490
107,525
116,015

Number
Returned
5,870
68,015
73,885

4.5.5 Recommitment Offense for Sex Registrants
Figure 11. Sex Registrant Recommitment Offense

Offenders who are
required to register
as a sex offender
are more likely to
be recommitted to
CDCR for a new
nonsex crime than
for a new sex
crime.

Parole Violation
86.9%

1.9% New Sex Crime
3.5%
7.8%
N=5,870

New "Fail to
Register" Crime

New Non-Sex Crime

Recidivating sex registrants are more often returned to prison for a
new non-sex crime than for a new sex crime. As seen in
Figure 11 and Table 12, a larger proportion of sex registrants
return to prison for a new non-sex crime offense (7.8 percent). In
response to stakeholder input, the “new sex crime” category has
been further delineated to separate new crimes that were due to a
failure to register as a sex offender. The results show that most of
the new crimes are due to those who fail to register as a sex
offender (3.5 percent) and about 2.0 percent are due to new sex
crimes being committed.

Recidivism
Rate
69.1%
63.3%
63.7%

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

A higher proportion of sex registrants return to prison for a new
non-sex crime than for failure to register as a sex offender or for a
new sex crime after having served more than one prison
sentence. Regardless of the release type, 86.9 percent of those
sex registrants returned to prison for parole violations.
From FY 2006-07 to FY2007-08, there was a slight increase in the
proportion of parole violators (+2.5 percentage points) and a
decrease in those who returned for a new sex crime
(-0.5 percentage points for “fail to register” and new sex crime
combined) and a new non-sex crime (-1.9 percentage points).
Table 12. Sex Registrant Recommitment Offense
First Releases Returned
Reason for Recidivism
New Sex Crime
New "Fail to Register as a Sex Offender" Crime
New Non-Sex Crime
Parole Violation
Total

Number
56
47
156
2,053
2,312

Re‐Releases Returned

Percent
2.4%
2.0%
6.7%
88.8%
100.0%

Number
55
158
299
3,046
3,558

Percent
1.5%
4.4%
8.4%
85.6%
100.0%

Total Returned
Number
111
205
455
5,099
5,870

Percent
1.9%
3.5%
7.8%
86.9%
100.0%

4.5.6 Comparison of Violent, Drug, and Registered
Sex Offender Recidivism Rates by Age
Figure 12. Violent, Drug, and Registered Sex Offender
Recidivism Rates by Age
75.0%     
75.0%     

18‐19
65.6%     
67.3%     

20‐24

58.4%     
64.4%     

25‐29

73.2%     

53.5%     

30‐34

Age Groups

Violent offenders
had the lowest
recidivism rates,
followed by drug
offenders, and
registered sex
offenders.

76.6%     

59.8%     
53.6%     

35‐39

66.5%     

61.7%     
68.6%     

58.4%     
61.1%     

40‐44

71.0%     
53.6%     
58.8%     

45‐49

71.3%     
47.2%     

50‐54

55.6%     
69.2%     

40.2%     

55‐59

49.1%     
32.5%     

60 +

63.5%     

45.7%     
52.7%     

0%

10%

20%

30%

Violent Offenders

40%

50%

Drug Offenders

60%

70%

80%

Registered Sex Offenders

90%

100%

31

32

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

Recidivism rates
declined for drug
offenders in all
age groups, with
the exception of
18 to 19 year olds
whose rate
increased
(+0.9 percent).

Figure 12 and Table 13 depict recidivism rates for violent, drug,
and registered sex offenders stratified by age. Individuals who
were identified as violent offenders had the lowest total recidivism
rates (57.3 percent) followed by drug offenders (60.9 percent) and
registered sex offenders (69.1 percent). This same pattern was
found within each age grouping and is similar to that which was
depicted in the age at release analysis. The exception was for the
youngest age group, which had the highest rates for each type of
offense. There were less than 30 registered sex offenders 18 to
19 years old who were released to parole, so a rate was not
calculated for this group. Consistent with earlier findings,
recidivism rates tend to decline with age with the rates peaking
between 40 and 44 for violent offenders (58.4 percent), between
35 and 39 for drug offenders (61.7 percent), and between 45 and
49 for sex offenders (71.3 percent). Again, the higher recidivism
rates for registered sex offenders may be an artifact of increased
supervision requirements.
From FY 2006-07 to FY 2007-08 there were two discernible trends
in the results. Recidivism rates declined for drug offenders in all
age groups ranging from -1.0 to -3.8 percentage points, with the
exception of 18 to 19 year olds whose rate increased
(+0.9 percent). Recidivism rates increased for registered sex
offenders in all age groups ranging from +0.9 to +6.1 percentage
points. There were no clear trends in the rates for violent
offenders.
Table 13. Violent, Drug, and Registered Sex Offender
Recidivism Rates by Age20

Violent Offenders
Age
Groups
18-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60 +
Total

Number
Released
48
1,647
2,304
1,451
994
726
524
282
122
83
8,181

Number
Returned
36
1,081
1,345
776
533
424
281
133
49
27
4,685

20

Recidivism
Rate
75.0%
65.6%
58.4%
53.5%
53.6%
58.4%
53.6%
47.2%
40.2%
32.5%
57.3%

Drug Offenders
Number
Released
76
3,196
6,098
5,432
5,799
5,747
4,886
2,581
1,026
462
35,303

Number
Returned
57
2,150
3,929
3,251
3,577
3,509
2,872
1,436
504
211
21,496

Recidivism
Rate
75.0%
67.3%
64.4%
59.8%
61.7%
61.1%
58.8%
55.6%
49.1%
45.7%
60.9%

Registered Sex Offenders
Number
Released
5
415
1,019
1,009
1,262
1,532
1,410
908
499
431
8,490

Number
Returned
4
318
746
671
866
1,088
1,005
628
317
227
5,870

Recidivism rates were not calculated when fewer than 30 inmates
were released.

Recidivism
Rate
N/A
76.6%
73.2%
66.5%
68.6%
71.0%
71.3%
69.2%
63.5%
52.7%
69.1%

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

4.5.7 Serious or Violent Offenders
Figure 13. Recidivism Rates by Serious/Violent Offender Flag
100%

Inmates
identified as being
serious/violent
recidivate at a
rate lower than
those without a
serious/violent
offense.

90%
80%
70%

64.5%
60.5%

60.2%

60%

55.3%
48.6%

50%
43.1%

40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
One Year

Two Years
Serious/Violent Offenders

Three Years

No Serious/Violent Flag

Figure 13 and Table 14 show that across all three years,
serious/violent offenders return to prison at a lower rate than
inmates not flagged for serious/violent offenses. Within the first
year of release, roughly 50 percent of the non-serious/non-violent
inmates return to prison and 43.1 percent of serious/violent
offenders return to prison. By the third year, non-serious/nonviolent inmates recidivate at a rate of 64.5 percent and
serious/violent offenders recidivate at a rate of 60.5 percent.
First-release serious/violent and non-serious/non-violent inmates
recidivate at lower rates (51.9 percent and 56.0 percent,
respectively) than re-release serious/violent and non-serious/nonviolent inmates (72.1 percent and 76.3 percent, respectively).
When compared to the FY 2006-07 cohort, overall the FY 2007-08
cohort showed the greatest decline in recidivism rates for the nonserious/non-violent offenders, particularly those who were first
releases.
Table 14. Recidivism Rates by Serious/Violent Offender Flag
First Releases
Serious/Violent
Offense
Yes
No
Total

Number
Released
14,017
52,904
66,921

Number
Returned
7,270
29,605
36,875

Re‐Releases
Recidivism
Rate
51.9%
56.0%
55.1%

Number
Released
10,359
38,735
49,094

Number
Returned
7,474
29,536
37,010

Total
Recidivism
Rate
72.1%
76.3%
75.4%

Number
Released
24,376
91,639
116,015

Number
Returned
14,744
59,141
73,885

Recidivism
Rate
60.5%
64.5%
63.7%

33

34

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

4.5.8 Mental Health Status

Overall, inmates
with identified
mental health
issues recidivate at
a higher rate than
those without
mental health
issues.

Approximately 16 percent of the felons released from CDCR in
FY 2007-08 were designated as either EOP or CCCMS.21 The
EOP is designed for mentally ill inmates who experience
adjustment difficulties in a general population setting, but are not
so impaired that they require 24-hour inpatient care. Similar to
secure day treatment services in the community, the program
includes 10 hours of structured clinical activity per week, individual
clinical contacts at least every 2 weeks, and enhanced nursing
services. Inmates receiving CCCMS services are housed within
the general population and participate on an outpatient basis.
Services include individual counseling, crisis intervention,
medication review, group therapy, social skills training, clinical
discharge and pre-release planning.
This is similar to an
outpatient program in the community.
Figure 14. Recidivism Rates by Mental Health Status
100%
90%
80%

76.7%
72.4%

70%

70.6%
66.3%

62.3%

62.0%
57.4%

60%
54.9%

50%

45.6%

40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
One Year
Enhanced Outpatient Program

Two Years
Correctional Clinical Case Management System

Three Years
No Mental Health Code

Figure 14 and Table 15 show that inmates with identified mental
health issues recidivate at higher rates than those who are not.
The recidivism rate is higher for inmates who received mental
health treatment services in the CDCR EOP than those who
received services in the CCCMS. Specifically, the three-year

21

The EOP and CCCMS are CDCR designations and do not necessarily
reflect a clinical (e.g., Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) mental health
diagnosis.

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report

35

October 2012

recidivism rates for the EOP and CCCMS inmates are higher
(76.7 and 70.6 percent, respectively) than those for inmates who
did not have a mental health code designation (62.0 percent).
At the end of three years, first-release inmates with an EOP
designation recidivate at a higher rate (71.4 percent) than those
designated as CCCMS (62.9 percent). In addition, first releases
who were served by the EOP have a recidivism rate that is
17.8 percentage points higher than those who did not have a
mental health code designation, and first-release inmates served
by the CCCMS recidivated at a rate that was 9.3 percentage
points higher. In contrast, the recidivism rates for re-released
mental health inmates did not differ much from non-mental health
inmates. Re-released inmates who were EOP or CCCMS have a
higher recidivism rate (80.6 percent and 77.3 percent,
respectively) than non-mental health inmates (74.6 percent).
When compared to the FY 2006-07 cohort, EOP inmates had the
greatest recidivism rate increase (+1.6 percentage points) while
those with no mental health code designation had the greatest
recidivism rate decrease (-1.9 percentage points).
Table 15. Recidivism Rates by Mental Health Status22
First Releases
Mental Health Code
Enhanced Outpatient Program
Correctional Clinical Case Management System
Crisis Bed
No Mental Health Code
Department Mental Health
Total

Number
Released
2,611
5,692
9
58,609
0
66,921

Number
Returned
1,863
3,580
7
31,425
0
36,875

Re‐Releases
Recidivism
Rate
71.4%
62.9%
N/A
53.6%
N/A
55.1%

Number
Released
3,534
6,483
12
39,064
1
49,094

Number
Returned
2,850
5,011
8
29,140
1
37,010

Total
Recidivism
Rate
80.6%
77.3%
N/A
74.6%
N/A
75.4%

4.5.9 Risk of Recidivism
The CSRA is a tool used to calculate an offender’s risk of being
convicted of a new offense after release from prison. Based on
their criminal history, offenders are designated as having either a
low, medium, or high risk of being convicted of a new offense after
release, with the high risk being further delineated with three subcategories (high drug, high property and high violence). Over half
of all inmates released from CDCR in FY 2007-08 were
designated as being at high-risk of recidivism.

22

Recidivism rates were not calculated when fewer than 30 inmates
were released.

Number
Released
6,145
12,175
21
97,673
1
116,015

Number
Returned
4,713
8,591
15
60,565
1
73,885

Recidivism
Rate
76.7%
70.6%
N/A
62.0%
N/A
63.7%

36

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

Figure 15. Recidivism Rates by CSRA Risk Category
100%

Observed
recidivism rates
increase in line
with predicted
recidivism rates,
as determined by
the CSRA.

90%
80%
74.4%
69.7%

70%
60%

57.1%

57.0%
52.5%

50%
41.0%

40%
30%

40.8%
36.9%

27.9%

20%
10%
0%
One Year

Two Years
Low

Medium

Three Years
High

As expected, the three-year recidivism rate for all releases is
lowest for those with a low-risk score (40.8 percent) followed by
those with a medium-risk score (57.1 percent), and the high-risk
inmates have the highest recidivism rate (74.4 percent)
(see Figure 15 and Table 16).
Similarly, recidivism rates for first releases and re-releases
increase as inmate risk level increases. However, the lower the
risk score, the larger the difference in recidivism rate between first
releases and re-releases. Low-risk re-releases recidivate at a rate
about 27.2 percentage points higher than low-risk first releases.
Medium-risk re-releases recidivate at a rate 21.2 percentage
points higher than medium-risk first releases.
High-risk
re-releases recidivate at a rate 11.5 percentage points higher than
high-risk first releases. The greatest decline in recidivism rates by
risk score from the FY 2006-07 cohort occurred for first releases,
which range from a decrease of 0.2 to 2.4 percentage points.

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

Table 16. Recidivism Rates by CSRA Risk Category23
First Releases
Number
Released
13,527
20,585
31,540
1,269
66,921

Risk Score
Low
Medium
High
N/A
Total

Number
Returned
4,448
10,178
21,665
584
36,875

Re‐Releases
Recidivism
Rate
32.9%
49.4%
68.7%
46.0%
55.1%

Number
Released
5,592
11,706
30,890
906
49,094

Number
Returned
3,362
8,263
24,760
625
37,010

Total
Recidivism
Rate
60.1%
70.6%
80.2%
69.0%
75.4%

Number
Released
19,119
32,291
62,430
2,175
116,015

Number
Returned
7,810
18,441
46,425
1,209
73,885

Recidivism
Rate
40.8%
57.1%
74.4%
55.6%
63.7%

4.5.10 Prior Admission to Division of Juvenile
Justice (DJJ)
Prior involvement with the juvenile justice system has been
identified as a risk factor for future involvement in the adult
correctional system.24 This section looks at the difference in
recidivism rates for those offenders who identified as having been
previously incarcerated in California’s DJJ (formerly California
Youth Authority) and those who had not.
Using historical California Youth Authority/DJJ data, this analysis
only includes adult offenders who were at least ten years old as of
1988 (i.e., those who were born in 1978 or later). Using this
methodology, a total of 39,653 offenders who were less than
30 years old at the time of release from CDCR were identified for
matching against the DJJ OBITS database. Matching the adult
records against any existing records recorded in the OBITS
database helped ensure that felons with purged DJJ records are
not included in the analysis.
Those who met the matching criteria were either categorized as
“Former DJJ” or “Never in DJJ,” depending on whether or not a
match was found in OBITS. Those with purged DJJ records are
reflected in the “Unknown” group.

23

24

N/A reflects scores computed manually for inmates whose CII
numbers did not match to the DOJ rap sheet data files.
Consequently, the CSRA scores for these inmates are currently
unavailable.
Gatti, U., Tremblay, R.E., and Vitaro, F. (2009). Latrogenic Effect of
Juvenile Justice. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50(8),
991-998.

Felons previously
incarcerated at
DJJ recidivate at a
much higher rate
than those who
were not.

37

38

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

Figure 16. Recidivism Rates by Prior DJJ Status
100%
90%
81.9%

80%

77.3%

70%

67.0%

64.6%

60%
50%

57.5%
50.0%

40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
One Year

Two Years
Former DJJ

Three Years

Never in DJJ

Felons who were identified as having been previously
incarcerated at DJJ had a three-year recidivism rate of
81.9 percent. This rate is almost 15 percentage points higher than
those felons who had not previously been incarcerated at DJJ.
The difference between the two groups is small when looking at
re-releases (only 6.1 percentage points). However, when looking
at first releases, the two groups were nearly 20 percentage points
apart, with those never incarcerated at DJJ recidivating at
60.4 percent and those who were formerly incarcerated at DJJ
recidivating at 79.7 percent.
Table 17. Recidivism Rates by Prior DJJ Status
First Releases
Previously
in DJJ
Former DJJ
Never in DJJ
Unknown
Total

Number
Released
1,677
22,982
42,262
66,921

Number
Returned
1,336
13,887
21,652
36,875

Re‐Releases
Recidivism
Rate
79.7%
60.4%
51.2%
55.1%

Number
Released
1,482
13,512
34,100
49,094

Number
Returned
1,250
10,564
25,196
37,010

Total
Recidivism
Rate
84.3%
78.2%
73.9%
75.4%

Number
Released
3,159
36,494
76,362
116,015

Number
Returned
2,586
24,451
46,848
73,885

Recidivism
Rate
81.9%
67.0%
61.3%
63.7%

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

4.6 CDCR Incarceration Experience
For the purpose of this report, length-of-stay refers to the total
amount of time an inmate served in CDCR adult institutions on the
term from which she/he was released in FY 2007-08, regardless
of the number of times an inmate cycled in and out of
incarceration prior to the FY 2007-08 release.
Example: Prior to being released in FY 2007-08, an inmate who
was initially committed to CDCR on August 1, 2003,
initially paroled on August 1, 2005 (24 months served
at CDCR), returned to prison on the same term on
December 1, 2005, was released again on
April 1, 2006 (4 more months served at CDCR), then
returned to prison on the same term on April 1, 2007,
and was released during the FY 2007-08 cohort period
on August 1, 2007 (4 months served at CDCR). Added
together, this inmate would have a total of 32 months in
CDCR for the current term.

4.6.1 Length-of-Stay (Current Term)
Figure 17. Recidivism Rates by Length-of-Stay
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%

66.5%     

69.8%     

69.3%     

67.3%     
61.2%     

60.0%     
56.2%     

60.0%     
55.2%     

50%
44.2%     

40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0 ‐ 6
months

7 ‐ 12
months

13 ‐ 18
months

19 ‐ 24
months

2 ‐ 3
years

3 ‐ 4
years

4 ‐ 5
years

5 ‐ 10
years

10 ‐ 15
years

15 +
years

Recidivism rates
peak for inmates
who serve
19 to 24 months
(69.8 percent) and
decline thereafter,
which may be
attributed to the
effects of age.

39

40

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

Figure 17 and Table 18 show that the FY 2007-08 cohort
recidivism rate is 56.2 percent for inmates who served
0 to 6 months on their current term. From that point, the
recidivism rate increases incrementally until it peaks at
69.8 percent for those who served 19 to 24 months on their
current term. Thereafter, the recidivism rate drops steadily as the
length-of-stay increases, ending with inmates who served 15 or
more years having a recidivism rate of 44.2 percent.
First releases and re-releases show a similar pattern to that of the
overall cohort.
First releases peak at 19 to 24 months
(58.1 percent) and end with inmates who served 15 or more years
having a 28.8 percent recidivism rate. Re-releases also peak at
19 to 24 months (78.8 percent) and then decrease thereafter.
Diverging from the first releases and the overall cohort, rereleases end with inmates who served 15 or more years having a
much higher recidivism rate (68.2 percent). The effects of lengthof-stay may also be confounded by the offender’s age.
Overall, there was a shift from the highest recidivism rate
occurring at 2 to 3 years for FY 2006-07 down to 19 to 24 months
in FY 2007-08. There were declines in many length-of-stay
categories from FY 2006-07 to 2007-08, with the slightest
decrease occurring for those who stayed 4 to 5 years
(-0.3 percentage points). The largest was for those who stayed
7 to 12 months (-2.7 percentage points). The smallest increase
was for those who stayed 3 to 4 years (+0.3 percentage points).
The largest was for those who stayed 15+ years (+4.1 percentage
points).
Table 18. Recidivism Rates by Length-of-Stay
First Releases
Length-of-Stay
0 - 6 months
7 - 12 months
13 - 18 months
19 - 24 months
2 - 3 years
3 - 4 years
4 - 5 years
5 - 10 years
10 - 15 years
15 + years
Total

Number
Released
9,937
25,400
11,110
6,473
5,898
2,570
1,754
2,845
802
132
66,921

Number
Returned
5,276
14,240
6,366
3,764
3,309
1,357
844
1,320
361
38
36,875

Re‐Releases
Recidivism
Rate
53.1%
56.1%
57.3%
58.1%
56.1%
52.8%
48.1%
46.4%
45.0%
28.8%
55.1%

Number
Released
2,436
8,366
10,313
8,339
9,867
4,230
1,912
3,043
503
85
49,094

Number
Returned
1,678
6,018
7,887
6,569
7,610
3,219
1,398
2,214
359
58
37,010

Total
Recidivism
Rate
68.9%
71.9%
76.5%
78.8%
77.1%
76.1%
73.1%
72.8%
71.4%
68.2%
75.4%

Number
Released
12,373
33,766
21,423
14,812
15,765
6,800
3,666
5,888
1,305
217
116,015

Number
Returned
6,954
20,258
14,253
10,333
10,919
4,576
2,242
3,534
720
96
73,885

Recidivism
Rate
56.2%
60.0%
66.5%
69.8%
69.3%
67.3%
61.2%
60.0%
55.2%
44.2%
63.7%

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report

41

October 2012

4.6.2 Number of Returns to CDCR Custody Prior to
Release (Current Term Only)
Figure 18. Three-Year Recidivism Rates by Number of Returns to
CDCR Custody (RTC) on the Current Term Prior to
Release
100%
90%
80%
73.5%     

76.9%     

78.4%     
76.6%      75.3%      76.1%     

78.5%     
72.5%     

75.9%     

70%

67.1%     

60%
55.1%     

50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
None

1

2

3

4
5
6
Number of Prior RTCs

7

8

9

10+

Figure 18 and Table 19 show the number of returns to CDCR
custody on the current term for inmates released from CDCR
during FY 2007-08. The “None” category represents inmates
released for the first time (i.e., these individuals have no prior
returns for their current term).
There is little variation in the recidivism rate despite the number of
prior returns to CDCR custody (RTCs) within the current term. A
re-released inmate who returns once on the current term has a
recidivism rate similar to that of a re-released inmate who returns
twice, three times, four times, etc. This relationship changes
when all stays on all terms are taken into account (see
Section 9.3, below).
From FY 2006-07 to FY 2007-08, there were minor shifts in the
recidivism rates for each number of RTCs (with some increasing
and some decreasing). The greatest change was for those who
had nine or more returns, which increased 14.7 percentage points.

Re-released
inmates who return
to CDCR
incarceration at
least one time
during their current
term have a
recidivism rate
similar to inmates
who have multiple
returns
to custody.

42

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

Table 19. Number of Returns to CDCR Custody on Current Term
Prior to Release

Total
RTCs on
Current Term
None
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10+
Total

Number
Released
66,921
21,511
11,484
6,917
4,139
2,308
1,302
690
386
187
170
116,015

Number Recidivism
Returned
Rate
36,875
55.1%
15,800
73.5%
8,828
76.9%
5,423
78.4%
3,170
76.6%
1,739
75.3%
991
76.1%
500
72.5%
303
78.5%
142
75.9%
114
67.1%
73,885
63.7%

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report

43

October 2012

4.6.3 Number of CDCR Stays Ever
(All Terms Combined)
Figure 19. Three-Year Recidivism Rates by Total Number of Stays
Ever
1

44.9%     

2

60.3%     

3

66.1%     

4

Over an inmate’s
entire criminal
career, recidivism
rates increase with
each additional
stay at a CDCR
institution.

69.3%     

5

70.3%     

6

72.2%     

7

74.1%     

8

75.3%     

9

76.6%     

10

76.8%     

11

78.9%     

12

80.2%     

13

80.9%     

14

81.1%     

15+

85.3%     

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

A stay is defined as any period of time an inmate is housed in a
CDCR institution. Each time an inmate returns to prison it is
considered a new stay, regardless of whether the return
represents a new admission, a parole violation with a new term, or
a return to prison following a parole violation. The number of
stays is cumulative over any number of convictions or terms in an
offender’s criminal career.
As the number of prior incarcerations in CDCR adult institutions
increases, so does the likelihood of return to prison (see Figure 19
and Table 20). Examination of prior CDCR stays for inmates
released in FY 2007-08 supports this assertion. While there are
progressively fewer inmates who return to prison over time, the
recidivism rates for those who do return increases incrementally
with each additional stay, from 44.9 percent for inmates who had
one (first ever) stay to 85.3 percent for inmates who had
15+ stays. Almost half (44.8 percent) of the inmates returned to
prison have between one and three CDCR stays, and the greatest
increase in the recidivism rates occurs between one and two stays
(15.4 percentage point increase).

44

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

From FY 2006-07 to 2007-08, there were overall decreases in the
recidivism rates for all categories of stays, ranging from five stays
(-0.5 percentage points) to two stays (-3.8 percentage points).

Table 20. Recidivism Rates by Total Number of Stays Ever
First Releases

Re‐Releases

Total

Number
Released
30,981

Number
Returned
13,902

Recidivism
Rate
44.9%

Number
Released
0

Number
Returned
0

Recidivism
Rate
N/A

Number
Released
30,981

Number
Returned
13,902

Recidivism
Rate
44.9%

2

8,485

4,436

52.3%

9,264

6,267

67.6%

17,749

10,703

60.3%

3

5,439

3,172

58.3%

7,362

5,294

71.9%

12,801

8,466

66.1%

4

4,106

2,542

61.9%

5,853

4,360

74.5%

9,959

6,902

69.3%

5

3,436

2,220

64.6%

4,594

3,425

74.6%

8,030

5,645

70.3%

6

2,822

1,937

68.6%

3,552

2,668

75.1%

6,374

4,605

72.2%

7

2,258

1,578

69.9%

2,988

2,310

77.3%

5,246

3,888

74.1%

8

1,959

1,418

72.4%

2,534

1,964

77.5%

4,493

3,382

75.3%

9

1,548

1,111

71.8%

2,219

1,773

79.9%

3,767

2,884

76.6%

10

1,263

931

73.7%

1,863

1,471

79.0%

3,126

2,402

76.8%

11

954

716

75.1%

1,556

1,265

81.3%

2,510

1,981

78.9%

12

779

599

76.9%

1,251

1,029

82.3%

2,030

1,628

80.2%

13

596

462

77.5%

1,106

915

82.7%

1,702

1,377

80.9%

14

501

376

75.0%

914

772

84.5%

1,415

1,148

81.1%

1,794
66,921

1,475
36,875

82.2%
55.1%

4,038
49,094

3,497
37,010

86.6%
75.4%

5,832
116,015

4,972
73,885

85.3%
63.7%

Stays
1

15+
Total

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report

45

October 2012

4.7 Recidivism by Adult Institutional Missions
4.7.1 Institution Missions
Figure 20. Three-Year Recidivism Rates by Institutional
Missions25
100%
90%
80%
72.5%     

70%
63.0%     

63.2%     

64.5%     

60%

55.0%     

56.2%     
54.2%     

57.4%     

52.2%     

50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Level I

Level II

Level III

Level IV

Female
Institutions

Camps

Reception
Centers

Other
Facilities

Under 30
days

Institutional Mission

Figure 20 and Table 21 show the three-year recidivism rates for
the FY 2007-08 inmates categorized by the last mission26 in which
they were housed for at least 30 days prior to being released. The
three-year recidivism rate is highest for inmates who were
released to parole from reception centers (72.5 percent), likely
influenced by re-releases as they are oftentimes housed in and
released from reception centers when their parole is revoked.
Recidivism rates were fairly comparable for inmates who
were assigned to the first three housing levels (approximately

25

Since inmates are often transferred to institutions closer to their county
just prior to release, the last institution where an inmate spent at least
30 days prior to being released to parole in FY 2007-08 is considered
to be the inmate’s institution of release. The “Under 30 Days” category
reflects those inmates who were not incarcerated in any one institution
for at least 30 days prior to being paroled.
26
Since females are not housed according to levels, all female institutions
are collapsed and displayed as “Female Institutions.” Levels I through
IV are male only. Camps, reception centers, other facilities, and under
30 days categories are comprised of both males and females.

Inmates housed in
reception centers
at least 30 days
prior to release are
more likely to
recidivate than
inmates housed at
any other CDCR
mission.

46

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

63 to 65 percent) with inmates who were assigned to camps
having the lowest overall recidivism rate of all CDCR missions
(52.2 percent).
Females had a lower rate than males housed in Level I through IV
institutions, as well as inmates housed in reception centers and
“other facilities.”

Inmates housed in
reception centers
have the highest
recidivism rate for
all missions overall.

First releases recidivate at a lower rate (ranging from 46.0 to
60.5 percent) than re-releases (ranging from 69.4 to 78.5 percent).
After ranking the recidivism rates from highest to lowest for each
mission for both first and re-releases (Table 22), comparisons of
the results show that inmates who are housed in reception centers
have the highest recidivism rate when they are first releases and
the sixth lowest recidivism rate when they are re-releases. In
addition, inmates housed in both Level III and Level IV institutions
have a higher likelihood to recidivate when they are re-releases.
Women housed in female institutions have the lowest recidivism
rates irrespective of release type.
From FY 2005-06 to 2007-08, the total recidivism rates
decreased, ranging from a 0.1 percentage point decrease for
inmates released from Camps to a 3.0 percentage point decrease
for those released from Female Institutions. A similar pattern was
found for first releases and re-releases; the exception was a slight
increase for those released from the Under 30 days category
(+0.1 percentage points).
Table 21 presents the percentage of inmates who were released
with a high CSRA score (i.e., high risk to recidivate) by mission.
Although it may seem logical that inmate risk to recidivate would
increase as housing level increased, there is actually almost no
relationship between these two factors. The exception to this
finding is for Level III inmates who have both a high CDCR
security housing level and also represent the greatest proportion
of inmates (within the four housing levels) that have high CSRA
risk scores.
Appendix D shows these mission recidivism rates further broken
out by gender and institution.

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report

47

October 2012

Table 21. Recidivism Rates by Institutional Missions27
Percent of Total
Released with a
High Risk
CSRA Score
Institutional Mission
Level I
54.6%
Level II
50.6%
Level III
58.6%
Level IV
50.5%
Female Institutions
34.2%
Camps
49.1%
Reception Centers
60.7%
Other Facilities
54.6%
Under 30 days
41.5%
Total
52.9%

First Releases
Number
Released
12,310
16,885
7,500
6,074
5,545
2,877
6,074
9,076
580
66,921

Re‐Releases

Number Recidivism
Returned
Rate
7,034
57.1%
9,710
57.5%
4,503
60.0%
2,914
48.0%
2,549
46.0%
1,502
52.2%
3,675
60.5%
4,656
51.3%
332
57.2%
36,875
55.1%

Number
Released
5,409
7,648
2,364
1,905
2,975
1
26,470
2,317
5
49,094

Number Recidivism
Returned
Rate
4,134
76.4%
5,794
75.8%
1,856
78.5%
1,471
77.2%
2,065
69.4%
1
N/A
19,935
75.3%
1,750
75.5%
4
N/A
37,010
75.4%

Table 22. Recidivism Rates by Institutional Missions
Sorted from Highest to Lowest
First Releases
Institutional
Mission
Reception Centers
Level III
Level II
Under 30 days
Level I
Camps
Other Facilities
Level IV
Female Institutions

Recidivism
Rate
60.5%
60.0%
57.5%
57.2%
57.1%
52.2%
51.3%
48.0%
46.0%

Re‐Releases
Institutional
Mission
Level III
Level IV
Level I
Level II
Other Facilities
Reception Centers
Female Institutions
Camps
Under 30 days

Recidivism
Rate
78.5%
77.2%
76.4%
75.8%
75.5%
75.3%
69.4%
N/A
N/A

4.7.2 Security Housing Unit (SHU)
Inmates whose conduct endangers the safety of others or the
security of the institution are housed in a SHU. In most cases,
these inmates have committed serious rules violations (e.g.,
assault on an inmate or staff) while housed in a general population
setting or have been validated as a member or associate of a
prison gang. Approximately six percent of the felons released
from CDCR in FY 2007-08 were housed in a SHU at some point
on the term for which they were released.

27

Recidivism rates were not calculated where less than 30 inmates
were released.

Total
Number
Released
17,719
24,533
9,864
7,979
8,520
2,878
32,544
11,393
585
116,015

Number Recidivism
Returned
Rate
11,168
63.0%
15,504
63.2%
6,359
64.5%
4,385
55.0%
4,614
54.2%
1,503
52.2%
23,610
72.5%
6,406
56.2%
336
57.4%
73,885
63.7%

48

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

Figure 21. Recidivism Rates by Security Housing Unit Status
100%
90%
80%
68.2%

70%
63.9%

Overall, inmates
who were
assigned to a
Security Housing
Unit recidivate at a
higher rate than
those who were not.

63.4%
58.9%

60%
51.9%

50%

47.2%

40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
One Year

Two Years
SHU

Three Years

No SHU

Figure 21 and Table 23 show that across all three years inmates
who were assigned to a SHU recidivate at a higher rate than those
who have were not assigned to a SHU.
First-release inmates who were assigned to a SHU recidivate at a
rate 4.1 percentage points higher than first-release inmates who
were not assigned to a SHU (59.0 percent and 54.9 percent,
respectively).
Re-release inmates who were assigned to a SHU recidivate at a
rate nearly two percentage points higher than re-release inmates
who were not assigned to a SHU (77.2 percent and 75.3 percent,
respectively).
Comparison of FY 2007-08 to FY 2006-07 shows that across all
categories, with the exception of SHU re-releases whose rate
remained exactly the same, the recidivism rates decreased
between 1.1 and 2.7 percentage points.
See Appendix E for detailed rates of recidivism for inmates
housed in a SHU by CDCR institution.
Table 23. Recidivism Rates by Security Housing Unit Status
First Releases
SHU Status
SHU
No SHU
Total

Number
Paroled
3,272
63,649
66,921

Number Recidivism
Returned
Rate
1,932
59.0%
34,943
54.9%
36,875
55.1%

Re‐Releases
Number
Paroled
3,331
45,763
49,094

Number
Returned
2,570
34,440
37,010

Total
Recidivism
Rate
77.2%
75.3%
75.4%

Number
Paroled
6,603
109,412
116,015

Number
Returned
4,502
69,383
73,885

Recidivism
Rate
68.2%
63.4%
63.7%

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report

49

October 2012

4.8 Recidivism by CDCR Program
There are a number of programs at CDCR. Below are recidivism
rates by program participation where the data are available for
analysis. Future reports will provide results for other programs as
well.

4.8.1 Developmental Disability Program (DDP)
Criteria for inclusion in the DDP are low cognitive functioning
(usually IQ of 75 or below) and concurrent deficits or impairments
in adaptive functioning. Both criteria must be met. All inmates
included in the DDP are assigned to housing that addresses their
safety and security needs and are provided with appropriate,
specific adaptive support services. Adaptive support services
include self-care, daily living skills, social skills and self-advocacy.

Figure 22. Recidivism Rates by DDP Participation

100%
90%
80%

77.3%
71.5%

70%
63.5%

60%
50%

59.5%

59.0%

47.3%

40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
One Year
Identified Developmental Disability

Two Years

Three Years

No Identified Developmental Disability

Figure 22 and Table 24 show that across all three years,
individuals who participated in the DDP return to prison at a higher
rate than those who did not participate. Within the first year of
release, 59.5 percent of the inmates from the DDP returned to
prison, whereas those who did not participate in the DDP returned

Overall, inmates
with a designated
developmental
disability recidivate
at a higher rate than
those without a
developmental
disability
designation.

50

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

at a rate of 47.3 percent. By the third year, these recidivism rates
climbed to 77.3 and 63.5 percent, respectively.
First-releases in both groups recidivate at lower rates
(72.0 percent and 54.9 percent, respectively) than re-releases
(81.6 percent and 75.3 percent, respectively).
Comparisons between FY 2007-08 and FY 2006-07 show that,
with the exception of first releases who have an identified
developmental disability, the recidivism rates decreased between
0.4 and 2.3 percentage points across all categories.
Table 24. Recidivism Rates by DDP Participation
First Releases
Developmental Disability Program
Identified Developmental Disability
No Identified Developmental Disability
Total

Number
Released
764
66,157
66,921

Number
Returned
550
36,325
36,875

Re‐Releases
Recidivism
Rate
72.0%
54.9%
55.1%

Number
Released
929
48,165
49,094

Number
Returned
758
36,252
37,010

Total
Recidivism
Rate
81.6%
75.3%
75.4%

Number
Released
1,693
114,322
116,015

4.8.2 In-Prison and Community-Based Substance
Abuse (SAP) Treatment Programs
In-Prison Substance Abuse Programs and Community-Based
SAPs are designed to create an extended exposure to a
continuum of services during incarceration and facilitate a
successful re-entry into community living.28 These services,
provided in both female and male institutions, include substance
abuse treatment and recovery services; social, cognitive and
behavioral counseling; life skills training; health-related education;
and relapse prevention.
Community-based substance abuse treatment programs (also
referred to as “continuing care” or “aftercare”) provide post-release
substance abuse treatment services through the Substance
Abuse Services Coordination Agencies (SASCA). There are four
SASCAs, one in each parole region, that are responsible for
referring, placing, and tracking parolees in appropriate substance
abuse programs.

28

This analysis only includes data for SAP programs operated by the
CDCR Office of Offender Services (formerly known as the Office of
Substance Abuse Treatment Services). Data for substance abuse
treatment programs administered by the Department of Adult Parole
Operations (e.g. STAR, RSMC, PSC) are not included.

Number
Returned
1,308
72,577
73,885

Recidivism
Rate
77.3%
63.5%
63.7%

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report

51

October 2012

Figure 23. Three-Year Recidivism Rates by Substance Abuse
Treatment Program Involvement
100%
90%
80%

78.8%

70%

66.6%

65.3%

63.9%

60%
48.9%

50%
40%
31.3%

30%
20%
10%
0%
In‐Prison SAP
Participation
Aftercare Completed

No In‐Prison SAP
Participation
Some Aftercare

No Aftercare

Figure 23 and Table 25 depict recidivism rates by SAP
involvement during and after incarceration. Previous reports
showed in-prison SAP figures by whether the participant
completed the program or not. However, given that there was
little difference between the two groups (regardless of aftercare
participation) the two groups were collapsed into one group of
participants.
Individuals who participated in in-prison SAP had much lower
recidivism rates than those that did not, whether or not they
completed an aftercare program (17.6 and 12.2 percentage point
difference, respectively).
While aftercare completers had the lowest recidivism rate for both
groups, the combination of in-prison SAP and completing
aftercare had the lowest recidivism rate (31.3 percent). Their rate
was more than 50 percent lower than those who also participated
in in-prison SAP and only received some aftercare or did not
participate in aftercare at all. Furthermore, those who did not
receive in-prison SAP and only received some aftercare had the
highest recidivism rate (78.8 percent).
The implication of this finding suggests that the combination of inprison SAP and aftercare results in the best outcome: a
recidivism rate that is much lower than those who did not
participate in in-prison SAP (with or without aftercare).
Theseresults should be interpreted with caution since the number

The combination of
in-prison SAP and
aftercare results in
the best outcome: a
recidivism rate that is
much lower than
those who did not
participate in
in-prison SAP
(with or without
aftercare).

52

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

of aftercare completers is small. Additional information on SAP
participants may be found in Appendix F.
Table 25. Recidivism Rates by Substance Abuse Treatment
Program Involvement29
First Releases
Substance Abuse Treatment
Program Involvement
In-Prison SAP
Participation
No Aftercare
Some Aftercare
Completed Aftercare
No In-Prison SAP
Participation
Some Aftercare
Completed Aftercare
Did Not Participate in SAP
or Aftercare
Total

Re‐Releases

Total

Number
Released

Number
Returned

Recidivism
Rate

Number
Released

Number
Returned

Recidivism
Rate

Number
Released

Number
Returned

Recidivism
Rate

8,532
1,601
1,418

4,994
1,043
431

58.5%
65.1%
30.4%

3,930
147
70

3,146
121
34

80.1%
82.3%
48.6%

12,462
1,748
1,488

8,140
1,164
465

65.3%
66.6%
31.3%

133
111

84
40

63.2%
36.0%

283
167

244
96

86.2%
57.5%

416
278

328
136

78.8%
48.9%

55,126

30,283

54.9%

44,497

33,369

75.0%

99,623

63,652

63.9%

66,921

36,875

49,094

37,010

116,015

73,885

55.1%

75.4%

4.8.3 Correctional Offender Management and
Profiling Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS)
COMPAS is a computerized tool designed to assess offenders’
needs and risk of recidivism and is used by criminal justice
agencies across the nation to inform decisions regarding the
placement, supervision and case management of offenders.30
The needs assessment categorizes offenders as having no need,
probable need, or highly probable need for services/treatment in
areas such as substance abuse, criminal thinking, and education.
COMPAS has been validated on CDCR’s population.31
COMPAS alone cannot reduce recidivism. It is a tool that
provides CDCR with information on an offender’s individual needs.
This information can then be used to place the offender into a
program that can meet the offender’s specific criminogenic need.
Therefore, the use of COMPAS, along with the appropriate

29

30

31

These results should not be compared to the FY 2007-08 Division of
Addiction and Recovery Services (DARS) “In-Prison Substance
Abuse Program (SAP) Return to Prison Analysis and Data Tables”
report due to major differences in cohort selection and methodology.
Retrieved September 14, 2012 from
http://www.northpointeinc.com/products/northpointe-software-suite
Farabee, D., et al. (2010). COMPAS Validation Study: Final Report.
Retrieved September 17, 2012 from
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Document
s/COMPAS_Final_Report_08-11-10.pdf

63.7%

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report

53

October 2012

(and well-implemented) evidence-based program, should reduce
recidivism.
In March 2006, CDCR began administering COMPAS to offenders
as they exited CDCR as part of their pre-parole case planning. In
2007, CDCR began to administer COMPAS in reception centers
as offenders were admitted to CDCR.
Although the previous section (Section 4.8.2) provided an overall
SAP recidivism analysis for all offenders who were released in
FY 2007-08, this COMPAS analysis focuses solely on those
individuals who, based upon empirical support, have an identified
need for substance abuse services. A limitation to this COMPAS
analysis is that only a modest number of assessment records
were available because the COMPAS was in the early stages of
implementation at the time the current cohort under examination
was incarcerated. Of the 116,015 inmates released during
FY 2007-08, 36,844 (30.8 percent) has their substance abuse
needs assessed using the COMPAS either prior to enrollment in
SAP (those who participated in SAP) or prior to release from
prison (those who did not participate in SAP). As a result, this
analysis should be considered preliminary until a larger number of
the CDCR inmate population is assessed.
Given CDCR’s
commitment to using the COMPAS to align with national best
practices for offender treatment, it is expected that the number of
COMPAS administrations will continue to rise over time.
Figure 24. Three-Year Recidivism Rates by Substance Abuse
Treatment Program Involvement for Inmates with a
Completed COMPAS who had an Identified
Substance Abuse Need
100%
90%
80%
70.7%

70%

65.7%

62.6%

62.7%

60%
50%

46.6%

40%
30%

30.7%

20%
10%
0%
In‐Prison SAP
Participation
Aftercare Completed

No In‐Prison SAP
Participation
Some Aftercare

No Aftercare

Approximately 72% of
offenders given a
COMPAS assessment
demonstrated a
substance abuse
need.

54

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

Of the 36,844 offenders in the FY 2007-08 cohort who were
assessed, 26,640 (approximately 72 percent) were identified as
having a substance abuse need. Figure 24 and Table 26 present
the recidivism rates for offenders who were administered a
COMPAS and identified as having a substance abuse need (either
a probable or highly probably need). Consequently, these are the
offenders who were in need of substance abuse treatment
programming. Caution must be taken when looking at this subset
of “substance abuse need” offenders as the need profile of the
remaining, un-assessed offenders is unknown. That said, it
appears that the recidivism rate distribution for the different groups
(i.e., in-prison treatment by aftercare treatment) are similar to
those presented in Section 11.2, with in-prison and aftercare SAP
participant completers having the lowest recidivism rate
(30.7 percent). Completion of aftercare continued to result in the
lowest recidivism rates for all groups.
Table 26. Recidivism Rates by Substance Abuse Treatment
Program Involvement and Substance Abuse
Treatment Need
First Releases
Substance Abuse Treatment
Program Involvement
In-Prison SAP Participants/
Had Substance Abuse Need
No Aftercare
Some Aftercare
Completed Aftercare
No In-Prison SAP Participation/
Had Substance Abuse Need

Number
Released

Number
Returned

Re‐Releases
Recidivism
Rate

Number
Released

Number
Returned

Total
Recidivism
Rate

Number
Released

Number
Returned

Recidivism
Rate

493
125
127

273
79
37

55.4%
63.2%
29.1%

219
18
10

173
15
5

79.0%
NA
NA

712
143
137

446
94
42

62.6%
65.7%
30.7%

39
38

24
14

61.5%
36.8%

36
35

29
20

80.6%
57.1%

75
73

53
34

70.7%
46.6%

19,080

10,881

57.0%

6,420

5,096

79.4%

25,500

15,977

62.7%

Substance Abuse Need
(Subtotal)

19,902

11,308

6,738

5,338

26,640

16,646

No Assessment/No Substance
Abuse Need Identified

47,019

25,567

42,356

31,672

89,375

57,239

Total

66,921

36,875

49,094

37,010

116,015

73,885

Some Aftercare
Completed Aftercare
Did Not Participate in SAP or
Aftercare/Had Substance
Abuse Need

56.8%
54.4%
55.1%

%

79.2%
74.8%
75.4%

62.5%
64.0%
63.7%

2012 CDC
CR Outcome
e Evaluation Report

55
5

October 2012

4.9
4
Type of
o Return to CDCR
As
A illustrated in Figure 25,
2 44 perce
ent of the in mates relea
ased in
FY2007-08 returned
r
to prison for a parole vi olation with
hin the
th
elease
hree-year fo
ollow-up perriod. Ninetteen percen
nt of the re
co
ohort returned to CDCR
R after being
g convicted of a new criminal
offfense.
hree-Year Ou
utcomes for Inmates Re
eleased From
m All
Figure 25. Th
CD
DCR Adult In
nstitutions in
n FY 2007-0
08.

w
depicts
s a breakdo
own of the re
easons
Furthermore, Table 27, which
ors returned
d to prison, shows tha
at returns d
due to
parole violato
echnical vio
olations were
e slightly higher
h
than for non-tecchnical
te
viiolations (5
54.7 versus 45.3 perc
cent, respecctively).
F
Finally,
19 percent off FY 2007-0
08 releases returned to prison afterr being
co
onvicted of a new crime.

Over one
e-third of
inmates rreleased
in FY 20
007-08
w
were not rreturned
to the C
CDCR.

F
Fourty-four percent
of the in
nmates
released
d during
FY 200
07-08
rreturned fo
or parole
violationss within
the three-year
p period.
follow-up

56

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

Table 27. Parole Violators Returned to Custody
Males
Number

Percent

Females
Number

Percent

Total RTCs
Number

Percent

FELON PAROLE VIOLATORS
RETURNED TO CUSTORY (PV-RTC)
PV-RTC with Principal Charge Information
Charges Dismissed
PV-RTC with Charge Information Unavailable
Total

40,569
967
5,531
47,067

86.2%
2.1%
11.8%
100.0%

3,797
38
601
4,436

85.6%
0.9%
13.5%
100.0%

44,366
1,005
6,132
51,503

86.1%
2.0%
11.9%
100.0%

5,085
2,585
2,199
3,550
6,510
20,640
40,569

12.5%
6.4%
5.4%
8.8%
16.0%
50.9%
100.0%

248
151
297
321
566
2,214
3,797

6.5%
4.0%
7.8%
8.5%
14.9%
58.3%
100.0%

5,333
2,736
2,496
3,871
7,076
22,854
44,366

12.0%
6.2%
5.6%
8.7%
15.9%
51.5%
100.0%

18,606
21,963
40,569

45.9%
54.1%
100.0%

1,496
2,301
3,797

39.4%
60.6%
100.0%

20,102
24,264
44,366

45.3%
54.7%
100.0%

PRINCIPAL CHARGE CATEGORY
(Includes Technical and Non-Technical)
Crimes Against Persons
Weapons Offenses
Property Offenses
Drug Offenses
Other Offenses
Violations of Parole Process
Total
TYPE OF RETURN TO CUSTODY
Non-Technical Violations
Technical Violations
Total

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

Table 27. Parole Violators Returned to Custody (continued)
Males
Number

Percent

TYPE I
Drug Possession
Drug Use
Drug Use/Simple Possession
Miscellaneous Violations of Law
Sub-Total

765
1,974
9
1,310
4,058

1.9%
4.9%
0.0%
3.2%
10.0%

TYPE II
Assault and Battery
Burglary
Driving Violations
Drug Possession
Drug Sales/Trafficking
Firearms and Weapons
Miscellaneous Non-Violent Crimes
Miscellaneous Violations of Law
Sex Offenses
Theft and Forgery
Sub-Total

686
467
1,147
5
291
268
2,648
149
1,128
1,512
8,301

TYPE III
Assault and Battery (Major)
Burglary - Major
Driving Violations (Major)
Drug Violations (Major)
Homicide
Miscellaneous Crimes (Major)
Rape and Sexual Assaults
Robbery
Weapon Offenses
Sub-Total

Females
Number

Total RTCs

Percent

Number

Percent

75
172
1
250
498

2.0%
4.5%
0.0%
6.6%
13.1%

840
2,146
10
1,560
4,556

1.9%
4.8%
0.0%
3.5%
10.3%

1.7%
1.2%
2.8%
0.0%
0.7%
0.7%
6.5%
0.4%
2.8%
3.7%
20.5%

65
43
75
0
41
17
165
5
21
231
663

1.7%
1.1%
2.0%
0.0%
1.1%
0.4%
4.3%
0.1%
0.6%
6.1%
17.5%

751
510
1,222
5
332
285
2,813
154
1,149
1,743
8,964

1.7%
1.1%
2.8%
0.0%
0.7%
0.6%
6.3%
0.3%
2.6%
3.9%
20.2%

2,668
220
460
506
75
796
187
341
994
6,247

6.6%
0.5%
1.1%
1.2%
0.2%
2.0%
0.5%
0.8%
2.5%
15.4%

140
23
25
32
0
46
2
20
47
335

3.7%
0.6%
0.7%
0.8%
0.0%
1.2%
0.1%
0.5%
1.2%
8.8%

2,808
243
485
538
75
842
189
361
1,041
6,582

6.3%
0.5%
1.1%
1.2%
0.2%
1.9%
0.4%
0.8%
2.3%
14.8%

18,606

45.9%

1,496

39.4%

20,102

45.3%

20,640
1,323
21,963

50.9%
3.3%
54.1%

2,214
87
2,301

58.3%
2.3%
60.6%

22,854
1,410
24,264

51.5%
3.2%
54.7%

NON-TECHNICAL VIOLATIONS
(Returns for Criminal Violations)

TOTAL
TECHNICAL VIOLATIONS
(Returns for Violations that are not
Criminal)
TYPE I/II - Violations of Parole Process
TYPE II - Weapons Access
TOTAL

57

58

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

5 Juvenile Facilities
5.1 Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ)
California’s juvenile justice system is made up of county and
State-level facilities, each operating evidence-based rehabilitative
programs. Compared to other states, California’s State-level
juvenile justice system serves an older youth population who
commit serious offenses. During FY 2007-08, the DJJ was
responsible for the confinement, rehabilitation, and parole
supervision of youth adjudicated or sentenced to the State level.
Prior to September 2007, youth with either felony or misdemeanor
adjudications were eligible for commitment to DJJ. However, due
to the belief that youthful offenders could be better served at the
local level where services and family are close at hand, Senate
Bill 81 (SB 81) was passed and continued the fundamental shift of
keeping lower level offenders close to home near local treatment
services and support from their families and the community at
large.
This legislation limited the type of youth who could be committed
to DJJ. Only youth whose most recent sustained offense was
listed under Welfare and Institutions Code (W&IC) 707(b),
violent offenses, or an offense listed in Penal Code (PC) 290.008,
sex offenses, (henceforth, “707(b)/290”) are eligible for
commitment to DJJ. In addition, this legislation required that non707(b) offenders be returned to the county of commitment upon
release for community supervision, rather than DJJ parole.
Detailed recidivism rates on these populations (current and prior)
are available in Appendix B.

5.2 Release Cohort Description
As youth who are not 707(b)/290 offenders are now retained in
county facilities, the DJJ youth population has diminished in size
and has become more serious with respect to their offense
histories. Consequently, there are differences between the youth
included in the FY 2007-08 release cohort and those who are
currently supervised by DJJ. To reflect DJJ’s current population
while providing a comprehensive examination of the
FY 2007-08 release cohort, this report provides data that
compares youth who had 707(b)/290 offenses to those who did
not.
Table 28 provides a description of the 1,419 youth released from a
DJJ facility during FY2007-08, broken out by those who were
707(b)/290 offenders and those who were not.

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

Table 28.

Description of Youth Released from DJJ during
FY 2007-08, by 707(b)/290 Status
707(b)/290

Characteristics
Total

N

Non707(b)/290

%
923

N

100.0%

%
496

Total
N

100.0%

%

1,419

100.0%

Gender
Female
Male
Race/Ethnicity
African American

46

5.0%

33

6.7%

79

5.6%

877

95.0%

463

93.3%

1,340

94.4%

33.1%

323

35.0%

147

29.6%

470

Native American/Alaska Native

10

1.1%

3

0.6%

13

0.9%

Asian/Pacific Islander

37

4.0%

12

2.4%

49

3.5%

Hispanic

433

46.9%

243

49.0%

676

47.6%

White

115

12.5%

90

18.1%

205

14.4%

Other

5

0.4%

1

0.2%

6

0.4%

61

6.6%

27

5.4%

88

6.2%

15

146

15.8%

78

15.7%

224

15.8%

16

251

27.2%

143

28.8%

394

27.8%

17

310

33.6%

171

34.5%

481

33.9%

18

138

15.0%

71

14.3%

209

14.7%

17

1.8%

6

1.2%

23

1.6%

Age at First Admission
12-14

19 and Over
Release Type
First Release

475

51.5%

341

68.8%

816

57.5%

Re-release

448

48.5%

155

31.3%

603

42.5%

1.6%

Age at Release
12-16

7

0.8%

15

3.0%

22

17

24

2.6%

31

6.3%

55

3.9%

18

74

8.0%

94

19.0%

168

11.8%

19

140

15.2%

127

25.6%

267

18.8%

20

186

20.2%

200

40.3%

386

27.2%

21

136

14.7%

26

5.2%

162

11.4%

22

119

12.9%

3

0.6%

122

8.6%

23

90

9.8%

0

0.0%

90

6.3%

24

133

14.4%

0

0.0%

133

9.4%

14

1.5%

0

0.0%

14

1.0%

764

82.8%

144

29.0%

908

64.0%

64

6.9%

224

45.2%

288

20.3%

Drug Crimes

3

0.3%

41

8.3%

44

3.1%

Other Crimes

92

10.0%

87

17.5%

179

12.6%

25 and Over
Commitment Offense
Crimes Against Persons
Property Crimes

Offender Type
Non-7079(b)/290

N/A

N/A

496

100.0%

496

35.0%

707(b) Only

780

84.5%

N/A

N/A

780

55.0%

290 Only

63

6.8%

N/A

N/A

63

4.4%

707(b) and 290

64

6.9%

N/A

N/A

64

4.5%

Superior Court Admission

16

1.7%

N/A

N/A

16

1.1%

59

60

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

Personal Characteristics
The 1,419 youth who comprised the FY 2007-08 release cohort
were predominantly male (94.4 percent).
The largest
race/ethnicity group in the release cohort was Hispanic
(47.6 percent). African Americans made up 33.1 percent of youth
released in FY 2007-08, and Whites represented 14.4 percent of
the cohort. Youth identified as Asian/Pacific Islander made up
3.5 percent of the release cohort, while Native Americans/Alaska
Natives represented 0.9 percent. The same pattern of findings
was true for 707(b)/290 youth and non-707(b)/290 youth.
Most youth released were between the ages of 16 and 17 when
first admitted to DJJ (61.7 percent). Few were 14 or younger
(6.2 percent) or 19 or older (1.6 percent) at admission. Ninety-five
percent of the youth were 18 years or older at their time of release
(i.e., no longer minors). Youth with the 707(b)/290 status were
much more likely to be released at age 21 or older (53.3 percent)
than non-707(b)/290 youth (5.8 percent).
Offender Characteristics
The majority of youth in the FY 2007-08 release cohort were
released after their first time in the DJJ (57.5 percent), with the
remaining being re-released (42.5 percent). The 707(b)/290 youth
were almost equally likely to be a first release as a re-release
(51.5 percent and 48.5 percent respectively). The non-707(b)/290
youth in this cohort were more likely to be first releases
(68.8 percent) than re-releases (31.3 percent).
In terms of most serious commitment offense, youth in the
FY 2007-08 cohort were most often charged with crimes against
persons (64.0 percent), followed by property crimes
(20.3 percent). Differences between these groups were also
found by most serious commitment offense. Eighty-three percent
of the 707(b)/290 youth were committed for crimes against
persons compared to 29.0 percent of their non-707(b)/290
counterparts. Conversely, only 6.9 percent of the 707(b)/290
youth were committed for property crimes compared to
45.2 percent of the non-707(b)/290 youth.
Within the 707(b)/290 category are youth who committed both
serious, violent crimes [W&IC 707(b)] and sex crimes requiring
their registration as sex offenders (PC 290). As shown in
Table 28, 55.0 percent of the youth released in FY 2007-08 were
707(b) offenders, 4.4 percent were 290s, 4.5 percent of the youth
released were both 707(b) and 290 cases, and 1.1 percent of the
youth were admitted to DJJ from Superior Court. Thirty-five
percent of the youth were neither 707(b) nor 290 cases.

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

5.3 Juvenile Returns to DJJ32
Figure 26. Three-Year Rates of Return to DJJ by Offender Type
100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%
38.8%

40%
34.6%

34.6%

30%
25.4%
19.4%

20%

12.8%

10%
0.6%

0%

One Year
707(b)/290

0.6%

0.6%

Two Years

Three Years

Non 707(b)/290

Total

As shown in Figure 26 and Table 29, youth released from DJJ in
FY 2007-08 had a 25.4 percent return to DJJ rate by the end of
three years. Many of the returns to DJJ (12.8 percent) occurred
by the end of the first year. Almost all of the returns were
707(b)/290 youth. Few non-707(b)/290 youth were returned
during the SB81 transition period as this legislation required that
they be realigned to county jurisdiction.
Table 29. Three-Year Rates of Return to DJJ by Offender Type
Offender
Type

Number
Released

One Year
Number
Recidivism
Returned
Rate

Two Years
Number
Recidivism
Returned
Rate

Three Years
Number
Recidivism
Returned
Rate

707(b)/290

923

179

19.4%

319

34.6%

358

Non 707(b)/290

496

3

0.6%

3

0.6%

3

0.6%

1,419

182

12.8%

322

22.7%

361

25.4%

Total

32

The same youth may be included in both “Return to DJJ” and
“Return/Commitment to DAI.” For example, a youth who was
returned to DJJ and then returned /committed to DAI may be included
in the DJJ return and in the DAI return/Commitment categories.

38.8%

61

62

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

5.4 Juvenile Return/Commitment to DAI33
Figure 27. Three-Year Rates of Return/Commitment to DAI by
Offender Type
100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%
42.3%

40%

38.1%

35.8%
30.2%

30%

27.3%

25.7%

20%
14.2%

12.3%

13.5%

10%

0%
One Year

Two Years
707(b)/290

Non 707(b)/290

Three Years
Total

As shown in Figure 27 and Table 30, youth released from DJJ in
FY 2007-08 had a 38.1 percent return/commitment to DAI rate by
the end of three years. For several reasons, including age and
exceeding maximum jurisdiction time, 13.8 percent more
returns/commitments to DAI took place by the end of the second
year, which is in contrast to all of the other recidivism indicators for
this cohort where most returns occurred in the first year. Overall,
non-707(b)/290 youth had a higher three-year return/commitment
to DAI rate (42.3 percent) than 707(b)/290 youth (35.8 percent).

33

The same youth may be included in both “Return to DJJ” and
“Return/Commitment to DAI.” For example, a youth who was
returned to DJJ and then returned /committed to DAI may be included
in the DJJ return and in the DAI return/Commitment categories.

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

Table 30.

Three-Year Rates of Return/Commitment to DAI by
Offender Type
Number
Released

Offender
Type

One Year
Number
Recidivism
Returned
Rate

Two Years
Number
Recidivism
Returned
Rate

707(b)/290

923

131

14.2%

237

25.7%

330

35.8%

Non 707(b)/290

496

61

12.3%

150

30.2%

210

42.3%

1,419

192

13.5%

387

27.3%

540

38.1%

Total

5.5

Any State-Level Incarceration

Figure 28.

Three-Year Rates of Return to Any State-Level
Incarceration by Offender Type

100%

90%

80%

70%
59.8%

60%

53.8%

52.3%

50%
44.7%

42.7%

40%

30%

Three Years
Number
Recidivism
Returned
Rate

31.2%

30.6%
24.7%

20%
12.7%

10%

0%
One Year

Two Years
707(b)/290

Non 707(b)/290

Three Years
Total

The “any State-level incarceration” measure includes youth who
were released from DJJ and returned/committed to either DJJ or
DAI, whichever occurred first. As shown in Figure 28 and
Table 31, youth released from DJJ in FY 2007-08 had a
53.8 percent return to any State-Level commitment rate by the
end of three years. As seen with the other recidivism indicators,
with the exception of returns/commitment to DAI, the majority of
the returns to any State-Level commitment took place by the end
of the first year (24.7 percent). Overall, the FY 2007-08 cohort
707(b)/290 youth had a higher three-year return/commitment to
any State-Level incarceration rate (59.8 percent) than non707(b)/290 youth (42.7 percent).

63

64

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

Table 31.

Number
Released

Offender
Type
707(b)/290

923

Non 707(b)/290
Total

Three-Year Rates of Return to Any State-Level
Incarceration by Offender Type
One Year
Number
Recidivism
Returned
Rate

Two Years
Number
Recidivism
Returned
Rate

Three Years
Number
Recidivism
Returned
Rate

288

31.2%

483

52.3%

552

59.8%

496

63

12.7%

152

30.6%

212

42.7%

1,419

351

24.7%

635

44.7%

764

53.8%

6 Special Feature
Prison University Project (PUP)
The PUP is a college program that began at San Quentin in 1996
as an extension site of Patten University. The program gives
offenders the opportunity to obtain an Associate of Arts degree by
providing 20 courses a semester, including college preparatory
courses in math and English. The faculty in the program work on
a volunteer basis and the program is funded through donations.
The program currently has over 300 students enrolled who, on
average, take 2 courses per semester.
Unlike the rest of this report, the PUP section is not based on a
release cohort from FY 2007-08. Due to the small number of PUP
graduates who have been released into the community, this
analysis includes all offenders who graduated from PUP since
1996 and were subsequently released from prison with enough
time in the community for a one year follow-up, regardless of the
year in which the release occurred.
In this analysis, recidivism rates are calculated for two different
groups of felons. The first group reflects the 37 offenders who
graduated from PUP (i.e., earned an associate’s degree) prior to
being paroled. The second is a matched comparison group of
33 felons who have characteristics similar to the 37 offenders who
graduated from PUP, but were not involved in the PUP program.
The comparison group was created by matching on the following
characteristics: gender, age group, race/ethnic group, sentence
type, release type, offense category, year of release, and housed
at San Quentin.

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

Figure 29. One-Year Recidivism Rates by Prison University
Project Involvement
100%

PUP graduates,
although small in
number, have
a low one-year
recidivism rate.

90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
21.2%

20%
10%

5.4%

0%
One Year
Graduates

Matched Comparison Group

Figure 29 and Table 32 show that those who graduated from the
PUP program and earned an associate’s degree prior to releasing
from prison had a one-year recidivism rate of 5.4 percent. The
matched comparison group who had no involvement with PUP
had a one-year recidivism rate at 21.2 percent. These findings
should be interpreted with caution because of the limited number
of felons who were released. Furthermore, both groups contain
individuals with characteristics associated with low recidivism
rates. Specifically, these two groups are entirely comprised of
first-releases, the majority of whom were older with indeterminate
sentences.
Table 32. Recidivism Rates by Prison University Project
Involvement
PUP
Status
Graduates
Matched Comparison Group

Total
Released
37
33

One Year
Number
Returned
2
7

Recidivism
Rate
5.4%
21.2%

65

66

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

Furthermore, Table 33 shows what types of returns to prison
occurred for both the graduates and the matched comparison
group. Two of the 37 graduates who were released from prison
returned to CDCR, both for parole violations. Seven of the 33
felons released in the matched comparison group returned – six
were returned to prison for a parole violation and one returned for
committing a new crime.
Table 33. One Year Outcomes for PUP Graduates and Matched
Comparison Group
Outcome
Successful 1 Year Out
Returned - Parole Violation
Returned - New Crime

Total

Graduates
Number
35
2
0
37

Percent
94.6%
5.4%
0.0%
100.0%

Matched Group
Number
26
6
1
33

Percent
78.8%
18.2%
3.0%
100.0%

7 Conclusion
Recidivism rates are key indicators of correctional performance
that are impacted by all aspects of the correctional system. This
report provides a glimpse into many of these factors. It is
intended to provide a comparison to measure future performance
and evaluate the impact of CDCR rehabilitative programs,
policies, and practices.

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

Appendix A
One-, Two- and Three-Year Recidivism Rates for
Arrests, Convictions, and Returns to Prison for Adult Felons
Released Between FYs 2002-03 and 2009-10
Presented in the three figures and tables below are recidivism rates for up to
eight years for adult felons released from CDCR by arrests, convictions, and
returns to prison. Shown first are the one-year recidivism rates for all adult felon
releases from FY 2002-03 through FY 2009-10.1 This figure provides the most
years of comparative data. While one year of follow-up is the shortest time frame
presented, it is a good indicator of recidivism (as indicated previously in this
report) since almost 75 percent of felons who recidivate do so within the first year
of release. To provide as complete a picture as possible, these one-year rates
are followed by two- and three-year recidivism rates.2
One‐Year Recidivism Rates by FY
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%

55.5%     

56.3%     

48.0%     
45.9%     

57.6%     

58.8%     

58.0%     

49.1%     

47.9%     

46.5%     

57.1%     

57.3%     

56.8%     

47.4%     
45.2%     

42.7%     

40%
30%
20%

19.7%     

21.6%     

22.6%     

22.1%     

23.7%     

22.2%     

21.6%     

20.9%     

10%
0%
2002‐03

1

2

2003‐04

2004‐05

2005‐06

Arrests

Convictions

2006‐07

2007‐08

2008‐09

2009‐10

Returns to Prison

The data contained in these charts and tables were extracted in June 2012 to minimize the
effects of the time lag in data entry into state systems
Recidivism rates are “frozen” at three years, meaning that after three years the follow-up period
is considered to be completed and no further analyses are performed. As such, reported rates
may fluctuate slightly for the one- and two-year rates as data used in subsequent reporting years
will likely increase, particularly for “Arrests” and “Convictions” since these data are routinely
updated in accordance with criminal justice system processing.

67

68

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

Two-Year Recidivism Rates by FY
100%
90%
80%
70%

69.8%     

70.3%     

71.3%     

71.8%     

61.0%     

59.8%     

61.3%     

62.5%     

60%

70.9%     

70.2%     

60.5%     

59.2%     

70.1%     

56.9%     

50%
40%

36.3%     

38.6%     

38.0%     

40.9%     

38.3%     

38.8%     

38.1%     

30%
20%
10%
0%
2002‐03

2003‐04

2004‐05
Arrests

2005‐06
Convictions

2006‐07

2007‐08

2008‐09

Returns to Prison

Three-Year Recidivism Rates by FY
100%
90%
80%
70%

76.2%     

76.4%     

66.2%     

65.6%     

47.7%     

48.5%     

77.0%     

66.8%     

77.2%     
76.6%     

75.8%     

67.5%     
65.1%     

63.7%     

60%
50%

49.2%     

48.7%     

51.5%     

49.6%     

40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2002‐03

2003‐04
Arrests

2004‐05
Convictions

2005‐06
Returns to Prison

2006‐07

2007‐08

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012
Arrests^

One Year
Fiscal Year
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07*
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10

Number
Released
99,482
99,635
103,647
105,974
112,665
113,888
110,244
101,973

Number
Arrested
55,204
56,127
59,703
62,331
65,369
64,981
63,210
57,925

Two Years

Recidivism
Rate
55.5%
56.3%
57.6%
58.8%
58.0%
57.1%
57.3%
56.8%

Number
Arrested
69,449
70,070
73,881
76,079
79,893
79,978
77,318
N/A

Recidivism
Rate
69.8%
70.3%
71.3%
71.8%
70.9%
70.2%
70.1%
N/A

Three Years
Number
Arrested
75,765
76,135
79,819
81,786
86,330
86,309
N/A
N/A

Recidivism
Rate
76.2%
76.4%
77.0%
77.2%
76.6%
75.8%
N/A
N/A

Convictions^

One Year
Fiscal Year
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07*
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10

Number
Released
99,482
99,635
103,647
105,974
112,665
113,888
110,244
101,973

Number
Convicted
19,643
21,509
23,464
23,428
26,657
25,233
23,859
21,339

Recidivism
Rate
19.7%
21.6%
22.6%
22.1%
23.7%
22.2%
21.6%
20.9%

Two Years
Number
Convicted
36,087
37,881
40,022
40,635
46,106
44,164
42,041
N/A

Recidivism
Rate
36.3%
38.0%
38.6%
38.3%
40.9%
38.8%
38.1%
N/A

Three Years
Number
Convicted
47,443
48,350
51,026
51,650
57,980
56,525
N/A
N/A

Recidivism
Rate
47.7%
48.5%
49.2%
48.7%
51.5%
49.6%
N/A
N/A

Returns to Prison

One Year
Fiscal Year
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07*
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10

Number
Released
103,934
103,296
106,920
108,662
115,254
116,015
112,919
105,598

Number
Returned
49,924
47,423
49,761
53,330
55,167
55,049
51,031
45,062

Recidivism
Rate
48.0%
45.9%
46.5%
49.1%
47.9%
47.4%
45.2%
42.7%

Two Years
Number
Returned
63,415
61,788
65,559
67,958
69,691
68,643
64,277
N/A

Recidivism
Rate
61.0%
59.8%
61.3%
62.5%
60.5%
59.2%
56.9%
N/A

Three Years
Number
Returned
68,810
67,734
71,444
73,350
75,018
73,885
N/A
N/A

Recidivism
Rate
66.2%
65.6%
66.8%
67.5%
65.1%
63.7%
N/A
N/A

3*

^

Rates for “Arrests” and “Convictions” only include those felons where an automated criminal
history record was available from the Department of Justice. These records are necessary to
measure recidivism by arrest and conviction. Total numbers released for these measures are
therefore smaller than those used to compute “Returns to Prison.”*
*
The “number released” depicted for Fiscal Year 2006-07 was erroneously reported in the “2010
Adult Institutions Outcome Evaluation Report” and was subsequently corrected in the “2011 Adult
Institutions Outcome Evaluation Report.”
~ FY’s that do not yet have enough follow-up time to capture recidivism behavior reported as “N/A.”

69

70

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

Appendix B
One-, Two- and Three-Year Recidivism Rates for
Arrests, Convictions, Returns to DJJ, Return/Commitment to DAI,
and Any State-Level Incarceration for Juvenile Offenders
Released Between FYs 2004-05 and 2009-10
Presented in the three figures and tables below are recidivism rates for up to six
years for juvenile offenders released from DJJ by arrests, convictions, and
returns to DJJ, return/commitment to DAI, and any State-Level incarceration.
Shown first are the one-year recidivism rates for all juvenile offenders released
from FY 2004-05 through FY 2009-10. This figure provides the most years of
comparative data. To provide as complete a picture as possible, these one-year
rates are followed by two- and three-year rates.3
One‐Year Recidivism Rates by FY
100%
90%
80%
70%

64.1%

65.8%

64.5%

63.1%

61.5%
58.5%

60%
50%

42.5%

40%
30.5%

34.9%

32.4%

32.2%

30.1%

27.7%

30%
26.4%

20%

22.7%

25.0%
27.6%

26.4%

24.7%

20.9%
13.4%

13.0%

23.7%

13.5%

18.2%

10%

23.3%

12.8%

14.4%

14.4%

2008‐09

2009‐10

9.5%

0%
2004‐05

2005‐06
Arrests

3

2006‐07
Convictions

DJJ

2007‐08
DAI

Any State-Level Return

Recidivism rates are “frozen” at three years, meaning that after three years the follow-up period is
considered to be completed and no further analyses are performed. As such, reported rates may
fluctuate slightly for the one- and two-year rates as data used in subsequent reporting years will
likely increase, particularly for “Arrests” and “Convictions” since these data are routinely updated
in accordance with criminal justice system processing.

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

Two‐Year Recidivism Rates by FY
100%
90%
80%

77.5%

79.9%

77.1%

79.4%
72.7%

70%
60%
50%

49.3%

48.8%

47.5%

48.4%

48.9%

48.3%

46.4%

45.4%

40%

45.2%

44.7%

32.4%

20%

30.7%

27.3%

28.1%

30%

25.9%
27.1%

25.6%

24.2%

22.1%

22.7%

10%
0%
2004/05

2005/06
Arrests

2006/07

Convictions

DJJ

2007/08
DAI

2008/09

Any State Return

Three‐Year Recidivism Rates by FY
100%
90%
83.2%

82.6%

84.5%

84.2%

60.1%

80%
70%
60%

59.4%

60.2%

59.8%

56.4%

56.1%

56.0%

50%
40%
30%

53.8%

38.1%
34.8%

36.4%

34.3%

31.4%

29.5%

27.7%

20%

25.4%

10%
0%
2004/05

2005/06
Arrests

Convictions

2006/07
DJJ

DAI

2007/08
Any State Return

71

72

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012
^~

Fiscal
Year
2004‐05

2005‐06

2006‐07

2007‐08

2008‐09

2009‐10

Fiscal
Year
2004‐05

2005‐06

2006‐07

2007‐08

2008‐09

2009‐10

^

Offender
Type
707(b)/290
Non 707(b)/290
Total
707(b)/290
Non 707(b)/290
Total
707(b)/290
Non 707(b)/290
Total
707(b)/290
Non 707(b)/290
Total
707(b)/290
Non 707(b)/290
Total
707(b)/290
Non 707(b)/290
Total

Offender
Type
707(b)/290
Non 707(b)/290
Total
707(b)/290
Non 707(b)/290
Total
707(b)/290
Non 707(b)/290
Total
707(b)/290
Non 707(b)/290
Total
707(b)/290
Non 707(b)/290
Total
707(b)/290
Non 707(b)/290
Total

Number 
Released
1,295
981
2,276
1,059
746
1,805
984
585
1,569
907
471
1,378
810
224
1,034
840
81
921

Arrests^
One Year
Number Recidivism
Returned
Rate
750
57.9%
710
72.4%
1,460
64.1%
618
58.4%
547
73.3%
1,165
64.5%
612
62.2%
421
72.0%
1,033
65.8%
541
59.6%
329
69.9%
870
63.1%
481
59.4%
155
69.2%
636
61.5%
487
58.0%
52
64.2%
539
58.5%

Two Years
Number Recidivism
Returned
Rate
928
71.7%
836
85.2%
1,764
77.5%
769
72.6%
623
83.5%
1,392
77.1%
756
76.8%
497
85.0%
1,253
79.9%
694
76.5%
400
84.9%
1,094
79.4%
573
70.7%
179
79.9%
752
72.7%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

Three Years
Number Recidivism
Returned
Rate
1,016
78.5%
877
89.4%
1,893
83.2%
838
79.1%
653
87.5%
1,491
82.6%
807
82.0%
519
88.7%
1,326
84.5%
738
81.4%
422
89.6%
1,160
84.2%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

Number 
Released
1,295
981
2,276
1,059
746
1,805
984
585
1,569
907
471
1,378
810
224
1,034
840
81
921

Convictions^
One Year
Number Recidivism
Returned
Rate
283
21.9%
319
32.5%
602
26.4%
234
22.1%
264
35.4%
498
27.6%
221
22.5%
194
33.2%
415
26.4%
215
23.7%
167
35.5%
382
27.7%
170
21.0%
88
39.3%
258
25.0%
187
22.3%
28
34.6%
215
23.3%

Two Years
Number Recidivism
Returned
Rate
502
38.8%
553
56.4%
1,055
46.4%
441
41.6%
430
57.6%
871
48.3%
403
41.0%
343
58.6%
746
47.5%
398
43.9%
276
58.6%
674
48.9%
329
40.6%
138
61.6%
467
45.2%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

Three Years
Number Recidivism
Returned
Rate
673
52.0%
678
69.1%
1,351
59.4%
566
53.4%
520
69.7%
1,086
60.2%
518
52.6%
421
72.0%
939
59.8%
494
54.5%
334
70.9%
828
60.1%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

Rates for “Arrests” and “Convictions” only include those felons where an automated criminal
history record was available from the Department of Justice. These records are necessary to
measure recidivism by arrest and conviction. Total numbers released for these measures are
*
therefore smaller than those used to compute State-level returns.
~
FY’s that do not yet have enough follow-up time to capture recidivism behavior reported as “N/A.”

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

Fiscal
Year
2004‐05

2005‐06

2006‐07

2007‐08

2008‐09

2009‐10

Offender
Type
707(b)/290
Non 707(b)/290
Total
707(b)/290
Non 707(b)/290
Total
707(b)/290
Non 707(b)/290
Total
707(b)/290
Non 707(b)/290
Total
707(b)/290
Non 707(b)/290
Total
707(b)/290
Non 707(b)/290
Total

Number 
Released
1,316
1,002
2,318
1,081
757
1,838
994
600
1,594
923
496
1,419
829
226
1,055
914
87
1,001

Return/Recommitment to DJJ
One Year
Two Years
Number Recidivism Number Recidivism
Returned
Rate
Returned
Rate
296
22.5%
457
34.7%
230
23.0%
294
29.3%
526
22.7%
751
32.4%
238
22.0%
339
31.4%
147
19.4%
178
23.5%
385
20.9%
517
28.1%
202
20.3%
294
29.6%
88
14.7%
92
15.3%
290
18.2%
386
24.2%
179
19.4%
319
34.6%
3
0.6%
3
0.6%
182
12.8%
322
22.7%
250
30.2%
324
39.1%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
250
23.7%
324
30.7%
322
35.2%
N/A
N/A
0
0.0%
N/A
N/A
322
32.2%
N/A
N/A

Three Years
Number Recidivism
Returned
Rate
501
38.1%
305
30.4%
806
34.8%
364
33.7%
179
23.6%
543
29.5%
349
35.1%
93
15.5%
442
27.7%
358
38.8%
3
0.6%
361
25.4%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

Number 
Released
1,316
1,002
2,318
1,081
757
1,838
994
600
1,594
923
496
1,419
829
226
1,055
914
87
1,001

Return/Commitment to DAI
One Year
Two Years
Number Recidivism Number Recidivism
Returned
Rate
Returned
Rate
112
8.5%
237
18.0%
109
10.9%
276
27.5%
221
9.5%
513
22.1%
125
11.6%
236
21.8%
114
15.1%
235
31.0%
239
13.0%
471
25.6%
120
12.1%
226
22.7%
94
15.7%
187
31.2%
214
13.4%
413
25.9%
131
14.2%
237
25.7%
61
12.3%
150
30.2%
192
13.5%
387
27.3%
107
12.9%
211
25.5%
45
19.9%
75
33.2%
152
14.4%
286
27.1%
127
13.9%
N/A
N/A
17
19.5%
N/A
N/A
144
14.4%
N/A
N/A

Three Years
Number Recidivism
Returned
Rate
342
26.0%
386
38.5%
728
31.4%
315
29.1%
316
41.7%
631
34.3%
309
31.1%
271
45.2%
580
36.4%
330
35.8%
210
42.3%
540
38.1%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

~

Fiscal
Year
2004‐05

2005‐06

2006‐07

2007‐08

2008‐09

2009‐10

~

Offender
Type
707(b)/290
Non 707(b)/290
Total
707(b)/290
Non 707(b)/290
Total
707(b)/290
Non 707(b)/290
Total
707(b)/290
Non 707(b)/290
Total
707(b)/290
Non 707(b)/290
Total
707(b)/290
Non 707(b)/290
Total

FY’s that do not yet have enough follow-up time to capture recidivism behavior reported as “N/A.”

73

74

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

Fiscal
Year
2004‐05

2005‐06

2006‐07

2007‐08

2008‐09

2009‐10

Offender
Type
707(b)/290
Non 707(b)/290
Total
707(b)/290
Non 707(b)/290
Total
707(b)/290
Non 707(b)/290
Total
707(b)/290
Non 707(b)/290
Total
707(b)/290
Non 707(b)/290
Total
707(b)/290
Non 707(b)/290
Total

Number 
Released
1,316
1,002
2,318
1,081
757
1,838
994
600
1,594
923
496
1,419
829
226
1,055
914
87
1,001

Any State‐Level Commitment
One Year
Two Years
Number Recidivism Number Recidivism
Returned
Rate
Returned
Rate
379
28.8%
620
47.1%
329
32.8%
512
51.1%
708
30.5%
1,132
48.8%
341
31.5%
521
48.2%
254
33.6%
385
50.9%
595
32.4%
906
49.3%
304
30.6%
464
46.7%
176
29.3%
259
43.2%
480
30.1%
723
45.4%
288
31.2%
483
52.3%
63
12.7%
152
30.6%
351
24.7%
635
44.7%
323
39.0%
436
52.6%
45
19.9%
75
33.2%
368
34.9%
511
48.4%
408
44.6%
N/A
N/A
17
19.5%
N/A
N/A
425
42.5%
N/A
N/A

Three Years
Number Recidivism
Returned
Rate
714
54.3%
593
59.2%
1,307
56.4%
589
54.5%
442
58.4%
1,031
56.1%
566
56.9%
326
54.3%
892
56.0%
552
59.8%
212
42.7%
764
53.8%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

~

~

FY’s that do not yet have enough follow-up time to capture recidivism behavior reported as “N/A.”

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

Appendix C
Three-Year Recidivism Rates by Offender Characteristics
Adult Felons Released During FY 2007-08
Offender Characteristics

TOTAL 
NUMBER 
RELEASED

TOTAL RECIDIVATED
WITHIN
N

One Year
Rate

Two Years
N
Rate

Three Years
N
Rate

Sex
Male
Female
Total

103,750
12,265
116,015

50,504
4,545
55,049

48.7%
37.1%
47.4%

62,733
5,910
68,643

60.5%
48.2%
59.2%

67,394
6,491
73,885

65.0%
52.9%
63.7%

Age at Release
18-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60 and over
Total

660
15,512
23,481
18,099
17,558
16,337
13,159
6,870
2,807
1,532
116,015

384
8,273
11,626
8,233
8,200
7,742
5,970
2,973
1,116
532
55,049

58.2%
53.3%
49.5%
45.5%
46.7%
47.4%
45.4%
43.3%
39.8%
34.7%
47.4%

470
10,199
14,566
10,452
10,260
9,567
7,431
3,684
1,355
659
68,643

71.2%
65.7%
62.0%
57.7%
58.4%
58.6%
56.5%
53.6%
48.3%
43.0%
59.2%

496
10,877
15,664
11,256
11,068
10,319
8,008
3,977
1,508
712
73,885

75.2%
70.1%
66.7%
62.2%
63.0%
63.2%
60.9%
57.9%
53.7%
46.5%
63.7%

Race/Ethnicity
White
Hispanic/Latino
Black/African-American
Asian
Native American/Alaska Native
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
Others
Total

36,575
44,313
29,934
739
1,110
149
3,195
116,015

18,436
18,813
15,512
293
627
53
1,315
55,049

50.4%
42.5%
51.8%
39.6%
56.5%
35.6%
41.2%
47.4%

22,565
23,782
19,392
396
756
71
1,681
68,643

61.7%
53.7%
64.8%
53.6%
68.1%
47.7%
52.6%
59.2%

24,104
25,748
20,898
423
794
81
1,837
73,885

65.9%
58.1%
69.8%
57.2%
71.5%
54.4%
57.5%
63.7%

Commitment Offense
Crime Against Persons
Property Crime
Drug Crime
Other Crime
Total

27,181
37,970
36,650
14,214
116,015

12,513
19,479
16,681
6,376
55,049

46.0%
51.3%
45.5%
44.9%
47.4%

15,627
24,027
20,941
8,048
68,643

57.5%
63.3%
57.1%
56.6%
59.2%

16,944
25,737
22,548
8,656
73,885

62.3%
67.8%
61.5%
60.9%
63.7%

Sentence Type
Determinate Sentence Law
Indeterminate Sentence Law
Total

115,959
56
116,015

55,044
5
55,049

47.5%
8.9%
47.4%

68,638
5
68,643

59.2%
8.9%
59.2%

73,877
8
73,885

63.7%
14.3%
63.7%

Sex Offender
Yes
No
Total

8,490
107,525
116,015

4,716
50,333
55,049

55.5%
46.8%
47.4%

5,512
63,131
68,643

64.9%
58.7%
59.2%

5,870
68,015
73,885

69.1%
63.3%
63.7%

Serious/Violent Offender
Yes
No
Total

24,376
91,639
116,015

10,501
44,548
55,049

43.1%
48.6%
47.4%

13,483
55,160
68,643

55.3%
60.2%
59.2%

14,744
59,141
73,885

60.5%
64.5%
63.7%

6,145

3,831

62.3%

4,451

72.4%

4,713

76.7%

12,175
21
97,673
1
116,015

6,679
11
44,527
1
55,049

54.9%
N/A
45.6%
N/A
47.4%

8,068
11
56,112
1
68,643

66.3%
N/A
57.4%
N/A
59.2%

8,591
15
60,565
1
73,885

70.6%
N/A
62.0%
N/A
63.7%

Mental Health
Enhanced Outpatient Program
Correctional Clinical Case
Management System
Crisis Bed
No Mental Health Code
Department Mental Health
Total

75

76

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

Three-Year Recidivism Rates by Offender Characteristics
Adult Felons Released During FY 2007-08 (continued)
Offender Characteristics
Risk Score Level
N/A
Low
Medium
High
Total

TOTAL 
NUMBER 
RELEASED
2,175
19,119
32,291
62,430
116,015

TOTAL RECIDIVATED
WITHIN
N

One Year
Rate

Two Years
N
Rate

Three Years
N
Rate

913
5,331
13,250
35,555
55,049

42.0%
27.9%
41.0%
57.0%
47.4%

1,124
7,054
16,949
43,516
68,643

51.7%
36.9%
52.5%
69.7%
59.2%

1,209
7,810
18,441
46,425
73,885

55.6%
40.8%
57.1%
74.4%
63.7%

Previously in DJJ
Former DJJ
Never in DJJ
Unknown
Total

3,159
36,494
76,362
116,015

2,042
18,241
34,766
55,049

64.6%
50.0%
45.5%
47.4%

2,441
22,794
43,408
68,643

77.3%
62.5%
56.8%
59.2%

2,586
24,451
46,848
73,885

81.9%
67.0%
61.3%
63.7%

Length of Stay
0 - 6 months
7 - 12 months
13 - 18 months
19 - 24 months
2 - 3 years
3 - 4 years
4 - 5 years
5 - 10 years
10 - 15 years
15 + years
Total

12,373
33,766
21,423
14,812
15,765
6,800
3,666
5,888
1,305
217
116,015

4,960
14,667
10,791
7,925
8,479
3,489
1,634
2,557
486
61
55,049

40.1%
43.4%
50.4%
53.5%
53.8%
51.3%
44.6%
43.4%
37.2%
28.1%
47.4%

6,412
18,790
13,351
9,648
10,252
4,244
2,051
3,184
633
78
68,643

51.8%
55.6%
62.3%
65.1%
65.0%
62.4%
55.9%
54.1%
48.5%
35.9%
59.2%

6,954
20,258
14,253
10,333
10,919
4,576
2,242
3,534
720
96
73,885

56.2%
60.0%
66.5%
69.8%
69.3%
67.3%
61.2%
60.0%
55.2%
44.2%
63.7%

Prior Returns to Custody
None
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10+
Total

66,921
21,511
11,484
6,917
4,139
2,308
1,302
690
386
187
170
116,015

25,373
12,081
7,128
4,549
2,686
1,482
852
423
258
121
96
55,049

37.9%
56.2%
62.1%
65.8%
64.9%
64.2%
65.4%
61.3%
66.8%
64.7%
56.5%
47.4%

33,418
14,915
8,452
5,207
3,039
1,653
954
475
290
134
106
68,643

49.9%
69.3%
73.6%
75.3%
73.4%
71.6%
73.3%
68.8%
75.1%
71.7%
62.4%
59.2%

36,875
15,800
8,828
5,423
3,170
1,739
991
500
303
142
114
73,885

55.1%
73.5%
76.9%
78.4%
76.6%
75.3%
76.1%
72.5%
78.5%
75.9%
67.1%
63.7%

Number of CDCR Stays Ever
One stay
Two stays
Three stays
Four stays
Five stays
Six stays
Seven stays
Eight stays
Nine stays
10 stays
11 stays
12 stays
13 stays
14 stays
15 + stays
Total

30,981
17,749
12,801
9,959
8,030
6,374
5,246
4,493
3,767
3,126
2,510
2,030
1,702
1,415
5,832
116,015

9,469
7,592
6,198
5,175
4,283
3,533
2,945
2,614
2,254
1,904
1,551
1,286
1,116
903
4,226
55,049

30.6%
42.8%
48.4%
52.0%
53.3%
55.4%
56.1%
58.2%
59.8%
60.9%
61.8%
63.3%
65.6%
63.8%
72.5%
47.4%

12,553
9,868
7,890
6,423
5,269
4,301
3,630
3,158
2,718
2,282
1,874
1,535
1,312
1,079
4,751
68,643

40.5%
55.6%
61.6%
64.5%
65.6%
67.5%
69.2%
70.3%
72.2%
73.0%
74.7%
75.6%
77.1%
76.3%
81.5%
59.2%

13,902
10,703
8,466
6,902
5,645
4,605
3,888
3,382
2,884
2,402
1,981
1,628
1,377
1,148
4,972
73,885

44.9%
60.3%
66.1%
69.3%
70.3%
72.2%
74.1%
75.3%
76.6%
76.8%
78.9%
80.2%
80.9%
81.1%
85.3%
63.7%

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

Three-Year Recidivism Rates by Offender Characteristics
Adult Felons Released During FY 2007-08 (continued)
Offender Characteristics

SHU Status
Ever in a SHU
Never in a SHU
Total

TOTAL 
NUMBER 
RELEASED

TOTAL RECIDIVATED
WITHIN
N

One Year
Rate

Two Years
N
Rate

Three Years
N
Rate

3,426
51,623
55,049

51.9%
47.2%
47.4%

4,218
64,425
68,643

63.9%
58.9%
59.2%

4,502
69,383
73,885

68.2%
63.4%
63.7%

1,693
114,322
116,015

1,008
54,041
55,049

59.5%
47.3%
47.4%

1,210
67,433
68,643

71.5%
59.0%
59.2%

1,308
72,577
73,885

77.3%
63.5%
63.7%

In-Prison Subastance Abuse Program
Participated in Program
15,698
Did Not Participate in Program
100,317
Total
116,015

6,742
48,307
55,049

42.9%
48.2%
47.4%

8,903
59,740
68,643

56.7%
59.6%
59.2%

9,769
64,116
73,885

62.2%
63.9%
63.7%

COMPAS Assessment/Substance Abuse Need
Had Substance Abuse Need
26,640
No Need/No Assessment
89,375
Total
116,015

12,443
42,606
55,049

46.7%
47.7%
47.4%

15,543
53,100
68,643

58.3%
59.4%
59.2%

16,646
57,239
73,885

62.5%
64.0%
63.7%

Developmental Disability Program
Identified Developmental Disability
No Developmental Disability Identified
Total

6,603
109,412
116,015

77

78

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

Three-Year Recidivism Rates by Offender Characteristics
Adult Felons Released During FY 2007-08
by Type of Release

Offender Characteristics

TOTAL
NUMBER
RELEASED

TOTAL RECIDIVATED
IN THREE YEARS
N

Rate

First Releases
One Year

Tw o Years

N

N

Rate

Rate

Re-Releases
Three Years
N

Rate

One Year

Tw o Years

N

N

Rate

Rate

Three Years
N

Rate

Sex
Male
Female
Total

103,750

67,394

65.0%

23,187

39.2%

30,386

51.4%

33,428

56.6%

27,317

61.2%

32,347

72.4%

33,966

76.1%

12,265

6,491

52.9%

2,186

27.9%

3,032

38.8%

3,447

44.1%

2,359

53.1%

2,878

64.8%

3,044

68.5%

116,015

73,885

63.7%

25,373

37.9%

33,418

49.9%

36,875

55.1%

29,676

60.4%

35,225

71.8%

37,010

75.4%

94.7%

Age at Release
18-19

660

496

75.2%

353

56.8%

434

69.8%

460

74.0%

31

81.6%

36

94.7%

36

20-24

15,512

10,877

70.1%

4,971

47.4%

6,264

59.7%

6,772

64.5%

3,302

65.8%

3,935

78.4%

4,105

81.8%

25-29

23,481

15,664

66.7%

5,564

41.1%

7,282

53.8%

7,991

59.0%

6,062

61.0%

7,284

73.3%

7,673

77.2%

30-34

18,099

11,256

62.2%

3,699

35.4%

4,998

47.8%

5,514

52.7%

4,534

59.4%

5,454

71.4%

5,742

75.2%

35-39

17,558

11,068

63.0%

3,455

35.5%

4,637

47.7%

5,158

53.0%

4,745

60.6%

5,623

71.8%

5,910

75.5%

40-44

16,337

10,319

63.2%

3,091

35.3%

4,127

47.2%

4,613

52.7%

4,651

61.3%

5,440

71.7%

5,706

75.2%

45-49

13,159

8,008

60.9%

2,407

33.9%

3,224

45.4%

3,573

50.3%

3,563

58.8%

4,207

69.5%

4,435

73.2%

50-54

6,870

3,977

57.9%

1,181

31.8%

1,591

42.8%

1,783

48.0%

1,792

56.8%

2,093

66.4%

2,194

69.6%

55-59

2,807

1,508

53.7%

448

28.0%

574

35.9%

683

42.7%

668

55.4%

781

64.8%

825

68.4%

60 and over

1,532

712

46.5%

204

22.5%

287

31.6%

328

36.2%

328

52.5%

372

59.5%

384

61.4%

116,015

73,885

63.7%

25,373

37.9%

33,418

49.9%

36,875

55.1%

29,676

60.4%

35,225

71.8%

37,010

75.4%

75.5%

Total
Race/Ethnicity
White

36,575

24,104

65.9%

8,002

40.6%

10,355

52.6%

11,350

57.7%

10,434

61.8%

12,210

72.3%

12,754

Hispanic/Latino

44,313

25,748

58.1%

9,452

33.6%

12,519

44.5%

13,866

49.3%

9,361

57.8%

11,263

69.5%

11,882

73.3%

Black/African-American

29,934

20,898

69.8%

6,833

42.7%

9,098

56.9%

10,055

62.8%

8,679

62.3%

10,294

73.9%

10,843

77.8%

Asian
Native American/Alaska Native
Native Haw aiian/Pacific Islander
Others
Total

739

423

57.2%

135

29.6%

201

44.1%

220

48.2%

158

55.8%

195

68.9%

203

71.7%

1,110

794

71.5%

243

49.0%

293

59.1%

311

62.7%

384

62.5%

463

75.4%

483

78.7%

149

81

54.4%

20

23.0%

33

37.9%

38

43.7%

33

53.2%

38

61.3%

43

69.4%

3,195

1,837

57.5%

688

33.0%

919

44.0%

1,035

49.6%

627

56.6%

762

68.8%

802

72.4%

116,015

73,885

63.7%

25,373

37.9%

33,418

49.9%

36,875

55.1%

29,676

60.4%

35,225

71.8%

37,010

75.4%

Com m itm ent Offense
Crime Against Persons

27,181

16,944

62.3%

5,282

35.9%

7,048

47.9%

7,879

53.5%

7,231

58.0%

8,579

68.9%

9,065

72.8%

Property Crime

37,970

25,737

67.8%

9,114

41.9%

11,876

54.6%

12,997

59.8%

10,365

63.8%

12,151

74.8%

12,740

78.5%

Drug Crime

36,650

22,548

61.5%

7,923

36.0%

10,465

47.5%

11,553

52.5%

8,758

59.9%

10,476

71.6%

10,995

75.1%

Other Crime

14,214

8,656

60.9%

3,054

36.2%

4,029

47.7%

4,446

52.6%

3,322

57.6%

4,019

69.7%

4,210

73.0%

116,015

73,885

63.7%

25,373

37.9%

33,418

49.9%

36,875

55.1%

29,676

60.4%

35,225

71.8%

37,010

75.4%

37.9%

33,415

50.0%

36,869

55.1%

29,674

60.4%

35,223

71.8%

37,008

75.4%

Total
Sentence Type
Determinate Sentence Law
Indeterminate Sentence Law
Total

115959

73877

63.7%

25,370

56

8

14.3%

3

116015

73885

63.7%

25,373

37.9%

5.9%

3
33,418

5.9%
49.9%

6 11.8%
36,875

55.1%

2
29,676

N/A
60.4%

2
35,225

N/A
71.8%

2
37,010

N/A
75.4%

Sex Offender
8,490

5,870

69.1%

1,709

44.3%

2,108

54.6%

2,312

59.9%

3,007

64.9%

3,404

73.5%

3,558

76.8%

No

Yes

107,525

68,015

63.3%

23,664

37.5%

31,310

49.6%

34,563

54.8%

26,669

60.0%

31,821

71.6%

33,452

75.2%

Total

116,015

73,885

63.7%

25,373

37.9%

33,418

49.9%

36,875

55.1%

29,676

60.4%

35,225

71.8%

37,010

75.4%

Yes

24,376

14,744

60.5%

4,662

33.3%

6,452

46.0%

7,270

51.9%

5,839

56.4%

7,031

67.9%

7,474

72.1%

No

91,639

59,141

64.5%

20,711

39.1%

26,966

51.0%

29,605

56.0%

23,837

61.5%

28,194

72.8%

29,536

76.3%

116,015

73,885

63.7%

25,373

37.9%

33,418

49.9%

36,875

55.1%

29,676

60.4%

35,225

71.8%

37,010

75.4%

6,145

4,713

76.7%

1,402

53.7%

1,711

65.5%

1,863

71.4%

2,429

68.7%

2,740

77.5%

2,850

80.6%

12,175

8,591

70.6%

2,553

44.9%

3,281

57.6%

3,580

62.9%

4,126

63.6%

4,787

73.8%

5,011

77.3%

21

15

97,673

60,565

Serious/Violent Offender

Total
Mental Health
Enhanced Outpatient Program
Correctional Clinical Case
Management System
Crisis Bed
No Mental Health Code
Department Mental Health
Total

N/A
62.0%

3
21,415

1

1

N/A

0

116,015

73,885

63.7%

25,373

N/A
36.5%
N/A
37.9%

3
28,423
0
33,418

N/A
48.5%
N/A
49.9%

7
31,425
0
36,875

N/A
53.6%
N/A
55.1%

8
23,112
1
29,676

N/A
59.2%
N/A
60.4%

8
27,689
1
35,225

N/A
70.9%
N/A
71.8%

8
29,140
1
37,010

N/A
74.6%
N/A
75.4%

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

Three-Year Recidivism Rates by Offender Characteristics
Adult Felons Released During FY 2007-08
by Type of Release (continued)
Offender Characteristics

TOTAL
NUMBER
RELEASED

TOTAL RECIDIVATED
IN THREE YEARS
N

Rate

First Releases
One Year

Tw o Years

N

N

Rate

Rate

Re-Releases
Three Years
N

Rate

One Year

Tw o Years

N

N

Rate

Rate

Three Years
N

Rate

Risk Score Level
N/A

2,175

1,209

55.6%

385

30.3%

519

40.9%

584

46.0%

528

58.3%

605

66.8%

625

Low

19,119

7,810

40.8%

2,743

20.3%

3,871

28.6%

4,448

32.9%

2,588

46.3%

3,183

56.9%

3,362

69.0%
60.1%

Medium

32,291

18,441

57.1%

6,721

32.6%

9,096

44.2%

10,178

49.4%

6,529

55.8%

7,853

67.1%

8,263

70.6%

High

62,430

46,425

74.4%

15,524

49.2%

19,932

63.2%

21,665

68.7%

20,031

64.8%

23,584

76.3%

24,760

80.2%

Total

116,015

73,885

63.7%

25,373

37.9%

33,418

49.9%

36,875

55.1%

29,676

60.4%

35,225

71.8%

37,010

75.4%

Previously in DJJ
Former DJJ

3,159

2,586

81.9%

1,031

61.5%

1,243

74.1%

1,336

79.7%

1,011

68.2%

1,198

80.8%

1,250

84.3%

Never in DJJ

36,494

24,451

67.0%

9,857

42.9%

12,737

55.4%

13,887

60.4%

8,384

62.0%

10,057

74.4%

10,564

78.2%

76,362

46,848

61.3%

14,485

34.3%

19,438

46.0%

21,652

51.2%

20,281

59.5%

23,970

70.3%

25,196

73.9%

116,015

73,885

63.7%

25,373

37.9%

33,418

49.9%

36,875

55.1%

29,676

60.4%

35,225

71.8%

37,010

75.4%

Unknow n
Total
Length of Stay
0 - 6 months

12,373

6,954

56.2%

3,697

37.2%

4,825

48.6%

5,276

53.1%

1,263

51.8%

1,587

65.1%

1,678

68.9%

7 - 12 months

33,766

20,258

60.0%

10,013

39.4%

13,066

51.4%

14,240

56.1%

4,654

55.6%

5,724

68.4%

6,018

71.9%

13 - 18 months

21,423

14,253

66.5%

4,483

40.4%

5,809

52.3%

6,366

57.3%

6,308

61.2%

7,542

73.1%

7,887

76.5%

19 - 24 months

14,812

10,333

69.8%

2,593

40.1%

3,375

52.1%

3,764

58.1%

5,332

63.9%

6,273

75.2%

6,569

78.8%

2 - 3 years

15,765

10,919

69.3%

2,214

37.5%

2,971

50.4%

3,309

56.1%

6,265

63.5%

7,281

73.8%

7,610

77.1%

3 - 4 years

6,800

4,576

67.3%

869

33.8%

1,204

46.8%

1,357

52.8%

2,620

61.9%

3,040

71.9%

3,219

76.1%

4 - 5 years

3,666

2,242

61.2%

509

29.0%

737

42.0%

844

48.1%

1,125

58.8%

1,314

68.7%

1,398

73.1%

5 - 10 years

5,888

3,534

60.0%

766

26.9%

1,104

38.8%

1,320

46.4%

1,791

58.9%

2,080

68.4%

2,214

72.8%

10 - 15 years

1,305

720

55.2%

209

26.1%

300

37.4%

361

45.0%

277

0.0%

333

66.2%

359

71.4%

217

96

44.2%

20

15.2%

27

20.5%

38

28.8%

41

48.2%

51

60.0%

58

68.2%

116,015

73,885

63.7%

25,373

37.9%

33,418

49.9%

36,875

55.1%

29,676

60.4%

35,225

71.8%

37,010

75.4%

15 + years
Total
Prior Returns to Custody
None

66,921

36,875

55.1%

25,373

37.9%

33,418

49.9%

36,875

55.1%

0

N/A

0

N/A

0

N/A

1

21,511

15,800

73.5%

0

N/A

0

N/A

0

N/A

12,081

56.2%

14,915

69.3%

15,800

73.5%

2

11,484

8,828

76.9%

0

N/A

0

N/A

0

N/A

7,128

62.1%

8,452

73.6%

8,828

76.9%

3

6,917

5,423

78.4%

0

N/A

0

N/A

0

N/A

4,549

65.8%

5,207

75.3%

5,423

78.4%

4

4,139

3,170

76.6%

0

N/A

0

N/A

0

N/A

2,686

64.9%

3,039

73.4%

3,170

76.6%

5

2,308

1,739

75.3%

0

N/A

0

N/A

0

N/A

1,482

64.2%

1,653

71.6%

1,739

75.3%

6

1,302

991

76.1%

0

N/A

0

N/A

0

N/A

852

65.4%

954

73.3%

991

76.1%
72.5%

7

690

500

72.5%

0

N/A

0

N/A

0

N/A

423

61.3%

475

68.8%

500

8

386

303

78.5%

0

N/A

0

N/A

0

N/A

258

66.8%

290

75.1%

303

78.5%

9

187

142

75.9%

0

N/A

0

N/A

0

N/A

121

64.7%

134

71.7%

142

75.9%

170

114

67.1%

0

N/A

0

N/A

0

N/A

96

56.5%

106

62.4%

114

67.1%

116,015

73,885

63.7%

25,373

37.9%

33,418

49.9%

36,875

55.1%

29,676

60.4%

35,225

71.8%

37,010

75.4%

10+
Total
Num ber of CDCR Stays Ever
One stay

30,981

13,902

44.9%

9,469

30.6%

12,553

40.5%

13,902

44.9%

0

N/A

0

N/A

0

N/A

Tw o stays

17,749

10,703

60.3%

2,888

34.0%

3,953

46.6%

4,436

52.3%

4,704

50.8%

5,915

63.8%

6,267

67.6%

Three stays

12,801

8,466

66.1%

2,098

38.6%

2,868

52.7%

3,172

58.3%

4,100

55.7%

5,022

68.2%

5,294

71.9%

Four stays

9,959

6,902

69.3%

1,701

41.4%

2,279

55.5%

2,542

61.9%

3,474

59.4%

4,144

70.8%

4,360

74.5%

Five stays

8,030

5,645

70.3%

1,564

45.5%

2,031

59.1%

2,220

64.6%

2,719

59.2%

3,238

70.5%

3,425

74.6%

Six stays

6,374

4,605

72.2%

1,359

48.2%

1,763

62.5%

1,937

68.6%

2,174

61.2%

2,538

71.5%

2,668

75.1%

Seven stays

5,246

3,888

74.1%

1,101

48.8%

1,428

63.2%

1,578

69.9%

1,844

61.7%

2,202

73.7%

2,310

77.3%

Eight stays

4,493

3,382

75.3%

998

50.9%

1,285

65.6%

1,418

72.4%

1,616

63.8%

1,873

73.9%

1,964

77.5%

Nine stays

3,767

2,884

76.6%

812

52.5%

1,030

66.5%

1,111

71.8%

1,442

65.0%

1,688

76.1%

1,773

79.9%

10 stays

3,126

2,402

76.8%

666

52.7%

867

68.6%

931

73.7%

1,238

66.5%

1,415

76.0%

1,471

79.0%

11 stays

2,510

1,981

78.9%

510

53.5%

660

69.2%

716

75.1%

1,041

66.9%

1,214

78.0%

1,265

81.3%

12 stays

2,030

1,628

80.2%

429

55.1%

551

70.7%

599

76.9%

857

68.5%

984

78.7%

1,029

82.3%

13 stays

1,702

1,377

80.9%

344

57.7%

431

72.3%

462

77.5%

772

69.8%

881

79.7%

915

82.7%

14 stays

1,415

1,148

81.1%

266

53.1%

345

68.9%

376

75.0%

637

69.7%

734

80.3%

772

84.5%

15 + stays

5,832

4,972

85.3%

1,168

65.1%

1,374

76.6%

1,475

82.2%

3,058

75.7%

3,377

83.6%

3,497

86.6%

116,015

73,885

63.7%

25,373

37.9%

33,418

49.9%

36,875

55.1%

29,676

60.4%

35,225

71.8%

37,010

75.4%

Total

79

80

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

Three-Year Recidivism Rates by Offender Characteristics
Adult Felons Released During FY 2007-08
by Type of Release (continued)
Offender Characteristics

TOTAL
NUMBER
RELEASED

TOTAL RECIDIVATED
IN THREE YEARS
N

Rate

First Releases
One Year

Tw o Years

N

N

Rate

Rate

Re-Releases
Three Years
N

Rate

One Year

Tw o Years

N

N

Rate

Rate

Three Years
N

Rate

SHU Status
Ever in a SHU

6,603

4,502

68.2%

1,351

41.3%

1,780

54.4%

1,932

59.0%

2,075

62.3%

2,438

73.2%

2,570

77.2%

Never in a SHU

109,412

69,383

63.4%

24,022

37.7%

31,638

49.7%

34,943

54.9%

27,601

60.3%

32,787

71.6%

34,440

75.3%

Total

116,015

73,885

63.7%

25,373

37.9%

33,418

49.9%

36,875

55.1%

29,676

60.4%

35,225

71.8%

37,010

75.4%

Developm ental Disability
Program
Identified Developmental Disability

1,693

1,308

77.3%

388

50.8%

494

64.7%

550

72.0%

620

66.7%

716

77.1%

758

81.6%

No Identified Developmental Disability

114,322

72,577

63.5%

24,985

37.8%

32,924

49.8%

36,325

54.9%

29,056

60.3%

34,509

71.6%

36,252

75.3%

Total

116,015

73,885

63.7%

25,373

37.9% 33,418

71.8% 37,010

75.4%

In-Prison
Subastance Abuse Program
Participated in Program

49.9% 36,875

55.1% 29,676

60.4% 35,225

15,698

9,769

62.2%

4,139

35.8%

5,754

49.8%

6,468

56.0%

2,603

62.8%

3,149

75.9%

3,301

79.6%

Did Not Participate in Program

100,317

64,116

63.9%

21,234

38.3%

27,664

50.0%

30,407

54.9%

27,073

60.2%

32,076

71.4%

33,709

75.0%

Total

116,015

73,885

63.7%

25,373

37.9%

33,418

49.9%

36,875

55.1%

29,676

60.4%

35,225

71.8%

37,010

75.4%

COMPAS Assessm ent/
Substance Abuse Need
Had Substance Abuse Need

26,640

16,646

62.5%

8,091

39.4%

10,420

50.7%

11,308

55.0%

4,352

62.7%

5,123

73.8%

5,338

76.9%

No Need/No Assessment

89,375

57,239

64.0%

17,282

37.3%

22,998

49.6%

25,567

55.1%

25,324

60.1%

30,102

71.4%

31,672

75.1%

116,015

73,885

63.7%

25,373

37.9%

33,418

49.9%

36,875

55.1%

29,676

60.4%

35,225

71.8%

37,010

75.4%

Total

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

Three-Year Recidivism Rates by Offender Commitment Offense
Adult Felons Released During FY2007-08
by Type of Release
Com m itm ent Offense

Murder First
Murder Second
Manslaughter
Vehicular Manslaughter
Robbery
Assault/Deadly Weapon
Attempted Murder First
Attempted Murder Second
Other Assault/Battery
Rape
Lewd Act With Child
Oral Copulation
Sodomy
Sexual Penetration with Object
Other Sex Offense
Kidnapping
Burglary First
Burglary Second
Grand Theft
Petty Theft With Prior
Receiving Stolen Property
Vehicle Theft
Forgery/Fraud
Other Property Offense
CS Possession
CS Possession for Sale
CS Sales
CS Manufacturing
Other CS Offense
Hashish Possession
Marijuana Possession for Sale
Marijuana Sale
Marijuana Other
Escape/Abscond
Driving Under Influence
Arson
Possession Weapon
Other Offenses
Total

TOTAL
NUMBER
RELEASED

10
29
541
253
5,124
6,022
9
344
9,449
396
1,961
161
47
118
2,494
223
3,506
7,381
3,615
5,945
5,161
7,600
3,506
1,256
19,947
10,086
3,408
644
721
79
1,153
463
149
130
2,946
315
6,681
4,142
116,015

TOTAL RECIDIVATED
IN THREE YEARS
N

1
3
230
88
3,246
3,756
2
165
6,162
206
942
107
19
67
1,842
108
2,285
5,004
2,225
4,239
3,621
5,536
2,001
826
13,471
5,396
1,908
297
480
52
621
260
63
85
1,243
178
4,536
2,614
73,885

Rate

First Releases

Re-Releases

One Year

Tw o Years

N

Rate

N

Rate

N

N/A
N/A
18.7%
11.8%
33.9%
36.8%
N/A
16.9%
40.1%
26.5%
21.9%
36.9%
15.6%
29.0%
52.9%
17.3%
36.9%
41.5%
36.7%
44.1%
46.0%
48.6%
29.9%
43.6%
42.1%
29.3%
31.5%
16.1%
40.7%
40.4%
30.3%
28.7%
18.4%
38.8%
20.0%
25.1%
44.7%
37.4%
37.9%

1
2
105
36
1,460
1,622
0
67
2,545
76
334
30
8
26
696
40
996
2,328
1,069
1,846
1,713
2,652
881
391
6,105
2,678
934
82
203
22
316
101
24
23
606
70
2,237
1,093
33,418

N/A
N/A
29.2%
19.3%
49.9%
48.6%
N/A
28.3%
51.9%
35.3%
30.5%
46.2%
25.0%
37.7%
62.0%
30.1%
50.7%
54.0%
48.9%
58.1%
58.5%
61.3%
41.8%
53.3%
55.0%
39.6%
41.9%
22.8%
52.6%
46.8%
41.6%
37.1%
24.5%
46.9%
28.7%
39.1%
57.5%
49.4%
49.9%

1
3
127
47
1,656
1,813
1
84
2,790
83
407
38
8
29
747
45
1,112
2,572
1,151
2,035
1,861
2,863
980
423
6,657
3,030
1,039
96
223
25
343
114
26
24
690
81
2,462
1,189
36,875

N/A
1
N/A
2
42.5%
67
34.8%
22
63.3%
993
62.4%
1,229
N/A
0
48.0%
40
65.2%
1,966
52.0%
57
48.0%
240
66.5%
24
40.4%
5
56.8%
20
73.9%
593
48.4%
23
65.2%
724
67.8%
1,787
61.5%
804
71.3%
1,399
70.2%
1,346
72.8%
2,104
57.1%
630
65.8%
320
67.5%
4,677
53.5%
1,984
56.0%
702
46.1%
58
66.6%
157
65.8%
19
53.9%
230
56.2%
78
42.3%
18
65.4%
19
42.2%
422
56.5%
45
67.9%
1,741
63.1%
827
63.7% 25,373

Three Years

One Year

Tw o Years

Three Years

Rate

N

Rate

N

Rate

N

Rate

N/A
N/A
35.4%
25.1%
56.6%
54.3%
N/A
35.4%
57.0%
38.6%
37.2%
58.5%
25.0%
42.0%
66.6%
33.8%
56.6%
59.7%
52.6%
64.1%
63.6%
66.1%
46.5%
57.6%
60.0%
44.8%
46.6%
26.7%
57.8%
53.2%
45.1%
41.9%
26.5%
49.0%
32.6%
45.3%
63.2%
53.8%
55.1%

0
0
70
26
1,238
1,516
1
59
2,738
98
421
55
7
31
922
49
940
1,970
885
1,820
1,432
2,197
800
321
5,524
1,783
706
156
207
23
208
119
32
49
453
80
1,596
1,144
29,676

N/A
N/A
38.5%
39.4%
56.3%
56.5%
N/A
55.1%
60.2%
54.1%
48.6%
57.3%
N/A
63.3%
67.2%
54.4%
61.0%
64.1%
62.0%
65.7%
64.1%
67.2%
57.3%
61.5%
62.4%
53.7%
60.0%
54.9%
61.8%
71.9%
52.9%
62.3%
62.7%
60.5%
54.5%
58.8%
57.2%
59.3%
60.4%

0
0
96
40
1,492
1,825
1
71
3,226
116
496
66
10
37
1,042
61
1,112
2,312
1,034
2,104
1,674
2,566
967
382
6,529
2,213
832
193
243
26
265
139
36
56
532
96
1,964
1,371
35,225

N/A
N/A
52.7%
60.6%
67.9%
68.0%
N/A
66.4%
70.9%
64.1%
57.3%
68.8%
N/A
75.5%
75.9%
67.8%
72.1%
75.3%
72.5%
76.0%
74.9%
78.4%
69.2%
73.2%
73.8%
66.6%
70.7%
68.0%
72.5%
81.3%
67.4%
72.8%
70.6%
69.1%
64.0%
70.6%
70.4%
71.0%
71.8%

0
0
103
41
1,590
1,943
1
81
3,372
123
535
69
11
38
1,095
63
1,173
2,432
1,074
2,204
1,760
2,673
1,021
403
6,814
2,366
869
201
257
27
278
146
37
61
553
97
2,074
1,425
37,010

N/A
N/A
56.6%
62.1%
72.3%
72.4%
N/A
75.7%
74.1%
68.0%
61.8%
71.9%
N/A
77.6%
79.8%
70.0%
76.1%
79.2%
75.3%
79.6%
78.8%
81.7%
73.1%
77.2%
77.0%
71.2%
73.8%
70.8%
76.7%
84.4%
70.7%
76.4%
72.5%
75.3%
66.5%
71.3%
74.4%
73.8%
75.4%

81

82

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

Three-Year Recidivism Rates by Offender Parole County
Adult Felons Released During FY 2007-08
by Type of Release

County of Parole

Alameda
Alpine
Amador
Butte
Calaveras
Colusa
Contra Costa
Del Norte
El Dorado
Fresno
Glenn
Humboldt
Imperial
Inyo
Kern
King
Lake
Lassen
Los Angeles
Madera
Marin
Mariposa
Mendocino
Merced
Modoc
Mono
Monterey
Napa
Nevada
Orange
Placer
Plumas
Riverside
Sacramento
San Benito
San Bernardino
San Diego
San Francisco
San Joaquin
San Luis Obispo
San Mateo
Santa Barbara
Santa Clara
Santa Cruz

TOTAL
NUMBER
RELEASED

5,251
12
48
924
50
33
1,424
93
314
4,944
133
606
352
36
4,273
851
316
88
30,030
628
57
29
257
885
39
15
1,091
151
72
8,919
546
39
7,192
6,023
58
10,000
7,396
1,563
2,811
766
1,042
918
3,455
377

TOTAL RECIDIVATED
IN THREE YEARS
N

3,179
5
27
575
30
20
1,042
65
223
3,652
78
444
257
20
3,043
601
194
55
16,221
441
34
21
179
649
21
9
774
101
43
4,877
374
24
5,044
3,582
43
7,087
5,158
1,217
2,178
450
672
652
2,286
275

Rate

60.5%
N/A
56.3%
62.2%
60.0%
60.6%
73.2%
69.9%
71.0%
73.9%
58.6%
73.3%
73.0%
55.6%
71.2%
70.6%
61.4%
62.5%
54.0%
70.2%
59.6%
N/A
69.6%
73.3%
53.8%
N/A
70.9%
66.9%
59.7%
54.7%
68.5%
61.5%
70.1%
59.5%
74.1%
70.9%
69.7%
77.9%
77.5%
58.7%
64.5%
71.0%
66.2%
72.9%

First Releases
One Year

Tw o Years

N

N

899
3
11
167
14
7
257
31
76
1,173
22
138
75
11
998
208
67
20
6,087
137
13
6
45
221
7
3
260
35
11
1,878
106
8
1,827
1,234
26
2,667
1,735
310
715
156
205
246
683
92

Rate

33.5%
N/A
30.6%
34.2%
45.2%
N/A
49.0%
55.4%
47.8%
53.6%
36.1%
51.3%
48.4%
N/A
43.9%
47.0%
37.2%
38.5%
27.8%
45.7%
35.1%
N/A
45.0%
52.9%
N/A
N/A
45.8%
38.5%
26.8%
32.1%
40.0%
N/A
45.9%
34.5%
63.4%
47.9%
44.4%
55.1%
56.3%
34.6%
37.0%
44.9%
39.8%
55.1%

1,107
4
15
222
16
9
311
33
97
1,377
25
165
102
13
1,388
253
82
24
9,174
168
18
8
59
257
9
4
340
47
18
2,429
141
8
2,301
1,538
29
3,282
2,231
373
846
218
274
329
910
106

Rate

Re-Releases
Three Years
N

Rate

41.3% 1,201 44.8%
N/A
4
N/A
41.7%
16 44.4%
45.5%
243 49.8%
51.6%
17 54.8%
N/A
9
N/A
59.4%
338 64.5%
58.9%
34 60.7%
61.0%
106 66.7%
62.9% 1,463 66.9%
41.0%
28 45.9%
61.3%
175 65.1%
65.8%
109 70.3%
N/A
15
N/A
61.0% 1,509 66.3%
57.1%
276 62.3%
45.6%
93 51.7%
46.2%
26 50.0%
41.9% 10,605 48.4%
56.0%
176 58.7%
48.6%
20 54.1%
N/A
8
N/A
59.0%
62 62.0%
61.5%
275 65.8%
N/A
9
N/A
N/A
5
N/A
59.9%
372 65.5%
51.6%
51 56.0%
43.9%
20 48.8%
41.5% 2,648 45.3%
53.2%
153 57.7%
N/A
9
N/A
57.8% 2,518 63.3%
43.0% 1,666 46.6%
70.7%
30 73.2%
58.9% 3,541 63.6%
57.1% 2,437 62.4%
66.3%
401 71.2%
66.6%
902 71.0%
48.3%
249 55.2%
49.5%
300 54.2%
60.0%
357 65.1%
53.1%
998 58.2%
63.5%
112 67.1%

One Year

Tw o Years

N

N

1,706
1
8
286
8
8
576
21
94
1,832
44
227
119
4
1,217
264
91
23
3,966
207
11
12
92
312
11
3
314
39
18
1,806
182
15
2,054
1,638
8
2,932
2,229
701
1,113
145
290
235
980
134

Rate

66.4%
N/A
66.7%
65.6%
N/A
N/A
64.0%
56.8%
60.6%
66.5%
61.1%
67.4%
60.4%
N/A
60.9%
64.7%
66.9%
63.9%
48.8%
63.1%
N/A
N/A
58.6%
66.8%
N/A
N/A
60.0%
65.0%
58.1%
58.8%
64.8%
N/A
64.0%
66.9%
N/A
66.2%
63.9%
70.1%
72.2%
46.0%
59.4%
63.5%
56.3%
63.8%

1,926
1
10
322
11
11
678
28
111
2,123
48
263
136
4
1,472
314
101
29
5,142
257
14
13
110
359
12
4
385
50
22
2,124
213
15
2,435
1,848
13
3,419
2,618
791
1,247
187
349
285
1,214
154

Rate

74.9%
N/A
83.3%
73.9%
N/A
N/A
75.3%
75.7%
71.6%
77.0%
66.7%
78.0%
69.0%
N/A
73.7%
77.0%
74.3%
80.6%
63.3%
78.4%
N/A
N/A
70.1%
76.9%
N/A
N/A
73.6%
83.3%
71.0%
69.2%
75.8%
N/A
75.8%
75.5%
N/A
77.2%
75.0%
79.1%
80.9%
59.4%
71.5%
77.0%
69.7%
73.3%

Three Years
N

1,978
1
11
332
13
11
704
31
117
2,189
50
269
148
5
1,534
325
101
29
5,616
265
14
13
117
374
12
4
402
50
23
2,229
221
15
2,526
1,916
13
3,546
2,721
816
1,276
201
372
295
1,288
163

Rate

76.9%
N/A
91.7%
76.1%
N/A
N/A
78.2%
83.8%
75.5%
79.4%
69.4%
79.8%
75.1%
N/A
76.8%
79.7%
74.3%
80.6%
69.1%
80.8%
N/A
N/A
74.5%
80.1%
N/A
N/A
76.9%
83.3%
74.2%
72.6%
78.6%
N/A
78.7%
78.3%
N/A
80.0%
78.0%
81.6%
82.8%
63.8%
76.2%
79.7%
74.0%
77.6%

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

Three-Year Recidivism Rates by Offender Parole County
Adult Felons Released During FY2007-08
by Type of Release (continued)

County of Parole

TOTAL
NUMBER
RELEASED

TOTAL RECIDIVATED
IN THREE YEARS
N

Rate

First Releases
One Year

Tw o Years

N

N

Shasta
1,158
784
67.7%
260
Sierra
4
2
N/A
1
Siskiyou
141
92
65.2%
42
Solano
1,503
1,071
71.3%
326
Sonoma
781
524
67.1%
164
Stanislaus
1,757
1,292
73.5%
465
Sutter
346
220
63.6%
103
Tehama
317
211
66.6%
71
Trinity
29
20
N/A
4
Tulare
1,608
1,112
69.2%
379
Tuolumne
91
51
56.0%
21
Ventura
1,798
1,351
75.1%
425
Yolo
594
447
75.3%
115
Yuba
497
349
70.2%
107
Discharged*
1,284
437
34.0%
0
Total
116,015 73,885
63.7% 25,373
*Felons directly discharged from an institution (not placed on parole) 
are free to move to the county of their choosing.

Rate

43.8%
325
N/A
1
53.2%
46
49.2%
389
40.4%
203
52.0%
565
46.2%
120
46.1%
82
N/A
6
45.0%
467
32.8%
27
49.2%
541
47.3%
153
45.9%
130
N/A
3
37.9% 33,418

Rate

Re-Releases
Three Years
N

54.8%
345
N/A
1
58.2%
48
58.7%
420
50.0%
227
63.1%
599
53.8%
131
53.2%
86
N/A
7
55.5%
507
42.2%
28
62.6%
580
63.0%
165
55.8%
140
N/A
5
49.9% 36,875

Rate

One Year

Tw o Years

N

N

58.2%
359
N/A
1
60.8%
41
63.3%
530
55.9%
236
66.9%
579
58.7%
84
55.8%
108
N/A
12
60.2%
504
43.8%
17
67.1%
652
67.9%
242
60.1%
172
N/A
163
55.1% 29,676

Rate

63.5%
417
N/A
1
66.1%
43
63.1%
616
62.9%
279
67.2%
660
68.3%
87
66.3%
118
N/A
13
65.8%
580
63.0%
22
69.8%
744
68.9%
271
65.2%
197
12.9%
309
60.4% 35,225

Rate

Three Years
N

73.8%
439
N/A
1
69.4%
44
73.3%
651
74.4%
297
76.6%
693
70.7%
89
72.4%
125
N/A
13
75.7%
605
81.5%
23
79.7%
771
77.2%
282
74.6%
209
24.5%
432
71.8% 37,010

Rate

77.7%
N/A
71.0%
77.5%
79.2%
80.4%
72.4%
76.7%
N/A
79.0%
85.2%
82.5%
80.3%
79.2%
34.3%
75.4%

83

84

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

Current Term Commitment Offense by New Term Commitment Offense for
Adult Felon Sex Registrants and All Other Adult Felon Offenders
Released During FY 2007-08

Commitment Offense
Sex Offenders
Crime Against Persons
Property Crimes
Drug Crimes
Other Crimes
Total

Commitment Offense
All Other Offenders
Crime Against Persons
Property Crimes
Drug Crimes
Other Crimes
Total

Returned with a New Conviction
Total
Total
Released Recidivated Crime Against Persons Property Crime
Drug Crime
N
%
N
%
N
%
5,551
1,091
1,205
643
8,490

3,496
911
973
490
5,870

252
78
64
26
420

7.2
8.6
6.6
5.3
7.2

42
55
18
11
126

1.2
6.0
1.8
2.2
2.1

59
19
62
8
148

1.7
2.1
6.4
1.6
2.5

Returned with a New Conviction
Total
Total
Released Recidivated Crime Against Persons Property Crime
Drug Crime
N
%
N
%
N
%
21,630
36,879
35,445
13,571
107,525

13,448
24,826
21,575
8,166
68,015

1,069
1,116
803
487
3,475

7.9
4.5
3.7
6.0
5.1

928
5,207
1,867
542
8,544

6.9
21.0
8.7
6.6
12.6

838
1,741
3,761
575
6,915

6.2
7.0
17.4
7.0
10.2

Other Crime
N
%
44
9
13
11
77

1.3
1.0
1.3
2.2
1.3

Other Crime
N
%
572
693
632
780
2,677

Parole Violation
Returned to
Custody
N
%
3,099
750
816
434
5,099

88.6
82.3
83.9
88.6
86.9

Parole Violation
Returned to
Custody
N
%

4.3
2.8
2.9
9.6
3.9

10,041
16,069
14,512
5,782
46,404

74.7
64.7
67.3
70.8
68.2

Current Term Commitment Offense by New Term Commitment Offense for
Adult Felon Serious/Violent Offenders and All Other Adult Felon Offenders
Released During FY 2007-08
Parole Offense
Serious/Violent Offenders
Crime Against Persons
Property Crimes
Drug Crimes
Other Crimes
Total

Parole Offense
All Other Offenders
Crime Against Persons
Property Crimes
Drug Crimes
Other Crimes
Total

Returned with a New Conviction
Total
Total
Paroled Recidivated Crime Against Persons Property Crime
Drug Crime
N
%
N
%
N
%
16,073
4,324
1,005
2,974
24,376

9,425
2,842
591
1,886
14,744

738
180
27
100
1,045

7.8
6.3
4.6
5.3
7.1

552
440
57
114
1,163

5.9
15.5
9.6
6.0
7.9

542
186
98
119
945

5.8
6.5
16.6
6.3
6.4

Returned with a New Conviction
Total
Total
Paroled Recidivated Crime Against Persons Property Crime
Drug Crime
N
%
N
%
N
%
11,108
33,646
35,645
11,240
91,639

7,519
22,895
21,957
6,770
59,141

583
1,014
840
413
2,850

7.8
4.4
3.8
6.1
4.8

418
4,822
1,828
439
7,507

5.6
21.1
8.3
6.5
12.7

355
1,574
3,725
464
6,118

4.7
6.9
17.0
6.9
10.3

Other Crime
N
%
372
73
31
94
570

3.9
2.6
5.2
5.0
3.9

Other Crime
N
%
244
3.2
629
2.7
614
2.8
697 10.3
2,184
3.7

Parole Violation
Returned to
Custody
N
%
7,221
1,963
378
1,459
11,021

76.6
69.1
64.0
77.4
74.7

Parole Violation
Returned to
Custody
N
%
5,919
14,856
14,950
4,757
40,482

78.7
64.9
68.1
70.3
68.4

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

Adult Flagged Sex Registrants Released During FY2007-08 for
Either a Sex Offense or a Non-sex Offense
Who Returned to Prison
by Type of Release

First Release Returns
Number
Percent

Re-Release Returns
Number
Percent

Total Returns
Number
Percent

Released for a sex offense
Returned with a new sex conviction
Returned with a 'failure to register' conviction
Returned with a new non-sex conviction
Returned for a parole violation
Total

19
10
18
650
697

2.7%
1.4%
2.6%
93.3%
100.0%

19
41
50
849
959

2.0%
4.3%
5.2%
88.5%
100.0%

38
51
68
1,499
1,656

2.3%
3.1%
4.1%
90.5%
100.0%

Paroled for a "failure to register" offense
Returned with a new sex conviction
Returned with a 'failure to register' conviction
Returned with a new non-sex conviction
Returned for a parole violation
Total

6
15
16
386
423

1.4%
3.5%
3.8%
91.3%
100.0%

4
45
42
564
655

0.6%
6.9%
6.4%
86.1%
100.0%

10
60
58
950
1,078

0.9%
5.6%
5.4%
88.1%
100.0%

Released for a non-sex offense
Returned with a new sex conviction
Returned with a 'failure to register' conviction
Returned with a new non-sex conviction
Returned for a parole violation
Total

31
22
122
1,017
1,192

2.6%
1.8%
10.2%
85.3%
100.0%

32
72
207
1,633
1,944

1.6%
3.7%
10.6%
84.0%
100.0%

63
94
329
2,650
3,136

2.0%
3.0%
10.5%
84.5%
100.0%

85

86

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

Appendix D
Mission and Institution Recidivism Rates by Gender
Adult Felons Released During FY 2007-08
Demographics
Median
Age
Mission

High
Risk

Institution

Recidivism Rates

Median
LOS
(Months)

First Releases

Re-Releases

Total

Number

Number

Recidivism

Number

Number

Recidivism

Number

Number

Recidivism

Released

Returned

Rate

Released

Returned

Rate

Released

Returned

Rate

Male
Camps

CCC

36

52.5%

18.7

1,296

708

54.6%

0

0

N/A

1,296

708

CMC

37

26.7%

23.6

30

10

33.3%

0

0

N/A

30

10

33.3%

SCC

36
36

50.0%

17.3

1
1

1
1

N/A

1,328
2,654

712
1,430

53.6%

18.1

711
1,429

53.6%

40.1%

1,327
2,653

Sub-Total
LEVEL I

Sub-Total

53.9%

35

56.5%

4.2

316

182

57.6%

236

185

78.4%

552

367

66.5%

CCC

34

58.8%

6.8

1,533

947

61.8%

449

353

78.6%

1,982

1,300

65.6%

CEN

33

58.9%

5.7

342

204

59.6%

183

142

77.6%

525

346

65.9%

CIM

39

53.1%

3.7

2,234

1,210

54.2%

1,722

1,300

75.5%

3,956

2,510

63.4%

CMC

38

47.0%

11.6

170

96

56.5%

15

12

N/A

185

108

58.4%

CMF

36

50.0%

6.1

118

79

66.9%

40

31

77.5%

158

110

69.6%

COR

37

56.0%

5.6

684

405

59.2%

255

194

76.1%

939

599

63.8%

SAC

34

58.3%

4.3

465

292

62.8%

183

137

74.9%

648

429

66.2%

CTF

41

46.3%

4.7

859

450

52.4%

235

184

78.3%

1,094

634

58.0%

CVSP

33

51.1%

7.0

280

156

55.7%

125

100

80.0%

405

256

63.2%

DVI

45

33.3%

86.7

3

1

FSP

36

54.3%

6.5

327

185

HDSP

36

53.9%

5.8

384

MCSP

40

46.0%

11.7

235

ISP

32

55.5%

6.8

254

135

N/A

0

0

N/A

3

1

56.6%

69

54

78.3%

396

239

60.4%

N/A

212

55.2%

156

115

73.7%

540

327

60.6%

132

56.2%

2

1

N/A

237

133

56.1%

53.1%

128

103

80.5%

382

238

62.3%

KVSP

36

59.1%

5.7

336

189

56.3%

119

98

82.4%

455

287

63.1%

LAC

35

53.1%

4.0

410

200

48.8%

196

138

70.4%

606

338

55.8%

NKSP

38

51.7%

5.2

343

168

49.0%

17

13

N/A

360

181

50.3%

PBSP

35

58.7%

7.0

325

182

56.0%

84

62

73.8%

409

244

59.7%

PVSP

39

50.6%

4.6

269

142

52.8%

180

129

71.7%

449

271

60.4%

57.2%

135

104

77.0%

357

231

64.7%

8

5

8

5

RJD

39

54.9%

5.8

222

127

SBURN

35

62.5%

9.8

0

0

SCC

33

57.6%

5.5

1,538

975

63.4%

554

427

77.1%

2,092

1,402

67.0%

SVSP

37

58.1%

5.4

289

167

57.8%

153

122

79.7%

442

289

65.4%

WSP

36
37

49.5%

3.6

125
4,134

539
17,719

323
11,168

59.9%

57.1%

165
5,409

75.8%

5.2

198
7,034

52.9%

54.6%

374
12,310

N/A

N/A

76.4%

N/A

63.0%

ASP

35

47.2%

5.9

3,140

1,863

59.3%

1,297

941

72.6%

4,437

2,804

63.2%

CCI

38

43.4%

5.2

2,232

1,186

53.1%

271

204

75.3%

2,503

1,390

55.5%

CMC

36

48.0%

6.1

1,982

1,112

56.1%

555

418

75.3%

2,537

1,530

60.3%

CMF

36

49.6%

6.9

190

115

60.5%

60

49

81.7%

250

164

65.6%

CRC

35

51.1%

4.7

1,720

928

54.0%

1,512

1,137

75.2%

3,232

2,065

63.9%

SAC

35

53.1%

7.0

1,443

887

61.5%

529

399

75.4%

1,972

1,286

65.2%

CTF

37

50.2%

5.1

375

221

58.9%

135

105

77.8%

510

326

63.9%

CVSP

36

48.8%

4.6

1,079

623

57.7%

790

599

75.8%

1,869

1,222

65.4%

DVI

36

59.2%

4.8

645

353

54.7%

402

315

78.4%

1,047

668

63.8%

FSP

34

63.9%

2.8

569

348

61.2%

618

501

81.1%

1,187

849

71.5%

HDSP

35

56.8%

5.1

84

52

61.9%

48

35

72.9%

132

87

65.9%

SATF

37

49.1%

9.2

2,547

1,468

57.6%

384

284

74.0%

2,931

1,752

59.8%

SQ

37
36

58.6%

3.2

554
9,710

1,047
7,648

807
5,794

77.1%
75.8%

1,926
24,533

1,361
15,504

70.7%

5.5

879
16,885

63.0%

50.6%

Sub-Total
LEVEL III

N/A

CAL

Sub-Total
LEVEL II

53.9%

54.6%

57.5%

63.2%

CEN

28

50.8%

3.1

1,734

750

43.3%

401

303

75.6%

2,135

1,053

49.3%

CMF

39

51.9%

6.9

666

425

63.8%

215

167

77.7%

881

592

67.2%

COR

31

65.9%

5.7

281

182

64.8%

88

74

84.1%

369

256

69.4%

CTF

27

65.9%

6.0

811

549

67.7%

238

192

80.7%

1,049

741

70.6%

FSP

26

70.0%

6.7

440

300

68.2%

179

140

78.2%

619

440

71.1%

MCSP

36

48.0%

6.9

296

203

68.6%

127

101

79.5%

423

304

71.9%

1,339

950

70.9%

471

261

55.4%

ISP

27

64.4%

7.0

993

675

68.0%

346

275

79.5%

NKSP

32

55.8%

4.9

442

242

54.8%

29

19

N/A

PVSP

39

62.5%

6.9

1,022

703

68.8%

313

254

81.2%

1,335

957

71.7%

RJD

34

53.8%

3.5

624

344

55.1%

332

249

75.0%

956

593

62.0%

WSP

27
29

67.2%

3.2

96
2,364

82
1,856

85.4%

287
9,864

212
6,359

73.9%

5.4

130
4,503

68.1%

58.6%

191
7,500

60.0%

78.5%

64.5%

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

Mission and Institution Recidivism Rates by Gender
Adult Felons Released During FY 2007-08 (Continued)
Demographics
Median
Age

High
Risk

Recidivism Rates

Median
LOS
(Months)

First Releases

Re-Releases

Total

Number

Number

Recidivism

Number

Number

Recidivism

Number

Number

Released

Returned

Rate

Released

Returned

Rate

Released

Returned

538

20.2%

330

63.0%

2,988

Mission

Institution

LEVEL IV

CAL

32

32.0%

1.8

CEN

33

41.7%

5.7

37

25

67.6%

11

9

COR

31

62.6%

7.0

485

338

69.7%

160

124

2,658

208

746

Recidivism
Rate
25.0%

N/A

48

34

70.8%

77.5%

645

462

71.6%

SAC

32

61.9%

3.7

369

249

67.5%

259

208

80.3%

628

457

72.8%

HDSP

29

66.3%

6.7

329

246

74.8%

134

111

82.8%

463

357

77.1%

MCSP

36

63.6%

9.4

48

39

81.3%

18

15

N/A

66

54

81.8%

KVSP

29

63.1%

6.6

663

441

66.5%

214

172

80.4%

877

613

69.9%

LAC

35

59.9%

3.9

481

312

64.9%

417

331

79.4%

898

643

71.6%

PBSP

33

63.0%

6.0

306

224

73.2%

140

114

81.4%

446

338

75.8%

RJD

33

53.3%

6.5

63

48

N/A

12

9

N/A

75

57

76.0%

SATF

30

54.3%

10.4

143

102

71.3%

19

16

N/A

162

118

72.8%

SVSP

31
32

59.6%

7.6

352
2,914

191
1,905

154
1,471

80.6%

683
7,979

506
4,385

74.1%

3.2

492
6,074

71.5%

50.5%

Reception Center CCI

30

55.3%

3.1

638

408

63.9%

147

110

74.8%

785

518

66.0%

CIM

36

63.9%

3.0

416

232

55.8%

5,999

4,442

74.0%

6,415

4,674

72.9%

DVI

37

66.0%

2.8

429

285

66.4%

3,016

2,435

80.7%

3,445

2,720

79.0%

HDSP

35

61.2%

2.9

35

16

N/A

416

314

75.5%

451

330

73.2%

LAC

37

56.4%

2.8

583

311

53.3%

2,869

2,045

71.3%

3,452

2,356

68.3%

NKSP

34

56.8%

3.1

969

543

56.0%

614

461

75.1%

1,583

1,004

63.4%

PITCH

25

100.0%

10.8

0

0

N/A

2

2

2

2

RIOCC

37

55.9%

6.0

0

0

N/A

606

463

76.4%

606

463

76.4%

RJD

36

59.0%

3.0

274

187

68.2%

1,884

1,390

73.8%

2,158

1,577

73.1%

SQ

37

66.4%

2.5

613

436

71.1%

4,315

3,372

78.1%

4,928

3,808

77.3%

SRITA

37

63.1%

3.3

2

2

N/A

1,875

1,422

75.8%

1,877

1,424

75.9%

WSP

33
36

59.9%

3.1

2,575
19,031

75.8%

5,095
30,797

3,616
22,492

71.0%

60.8%

3,358
25,101

76.7%

2.9

1,041
3,461

59.9%

61.9%

1,737
5,696

55.9%

75.5%

60.8%

Sub-Total

Sub-Total
Other Facilities

48.0%

77.2%

N/A

55.0%

N/A

73.0%

CCF

30

58.4%

4.8

6,551

3,663

2,212

1,669

8,763

5,332

COCF

32

0.0%

2.0

1

0

N/A

0

0

N/A

1

0

N/A

LPU

27

100.0%

10.5

2

1

N/A

2

2

N/A

4

3

N/A

RENT1

32

59.8%

3.4

263

115

43.7%

1

1

N/A

264

116

43.9%

RENT3

34

46.5%

3.6

402

170

42.3%

0

0

N/A

402

170

42.3%

RENT4

34
30

61.8%

3.6

3
1,675

275
9,709

145
5,766

52.7%

54.6%

3
2,218

N/A

4.4

142
4,091

52.2%

58.1%

272
7,491

37

27.2%

16.3

224

73

32.6%

0

0

N/A

224

73

32.6%

37

27.2%

16.3

224

73

32.6%

0

0

N/A

224

73

32.6%

Sub-Total

75.5%

59.4%

Female
Camp

CIW

Sub-Total
Institutions

CCWF

38

31.1%

5.3

2,363

1,096

46.4%

471

326

69.2%

2,834

1,422

50.2%

CIW

37

35.6%

3.2

889

377

42.4%

1,351

915

67.7%

2,240

1,292

57.7%

VSPW

36

35.8%

4.0

2,293

1,076

46.9%

1,153

824

71.5%

3,446

1,900

55.1%

37

34.2%

4.2

5,545

2,549

46.0%

2,975

2,065

69.4%

8,520

4,614

54.2%

Sub-Total
Reception Center CCWF

36

33.7%

2.0

199

111

55.8%

211

136

64.5%

410

247

60.2%

CIW

36

39.4%

5.3

16

9

N/A

449

285

63.5%

465

294

63.2%

RIOCC

40

53.6%

5.8

0

0

N/A

56

46

82.1%

56

46

82.1%

SRITA

36

75.0%

4.4

0

0

N/A

12

9

N/A

12

9

VSPW

36

41.7%

2.6

163

94

57.7%

641

428

66.8%

804

522

64.9%

36

39.8%

2.8

378

214

56.6%

1,369

904

66.0%

1,747

1,118

64.0%

CCF

35

33.5%

4.6

424

171

40.3%

48

35

72.9%

472

206

43.6%

LPUFP

28

41.1%

12.2

56

16

28.6%

0

0

N/A

56

16

28.6%

LPUPM

30

41.3%

6.2

91

28

30.8%

1

1

N/A

92

29

31.5%

Sub-Total
Other Facilities

Sub-Total

N/A

RENT1

35

34.6%

3.0

195

65

33.3%

10

8

N/A

205

73

35.6%

RENT2

40

39.0%

2.8

101

36

N/A

4

3

N/A

105

39

37.1%

RENT3

35

28.9%

2.9

346

97

28.0%

7

4

N/A

353

101

28.6%

RENT4

37

37.9%

2.6

372

152

40.9%

29

24

N/A

401

176

43.9%

35

34.7%

3.3

1,585

565

35.6%

99

75

75.8%

1,684

640

38.0%

87

88

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

Mission and Institution Recidivism Rates by Gender
Adult Felons Released During FY 2007-08 (Continued)
Demographics
Median
Age
Mission

High
Risk

Institution

Recidivism Rates

Median
LOS
(Months)

First Releases

Re-Releases

Total

Number

Number

Recidivism

Number

Number

Recidivism

Number

Number

Recidivism

Released

Returned

Rate

Released

Returned

Rate

Released

Returned

Rate

Under 30
Days
Male
LEVEL II

CMC

45

100%

0.5

1

1

N/A

0

0

N/A

1

1

N/A

CRC

53

0.0%

0.8

1

N/A

N/A

N/A

0.6

2

N/A

0

N/A

1
2

1

50.0%

0
0

0

49

1
2

2

N/A

Sub-Total
LEVEL IV
Sub-Total

LAC

31

0.0%

0.9

N/A

N/A

N/A

1

N/A

0

N/A

1
1

1

0.9

0
0

0

0.0%

1
1

1

31

1

N/A

Reception Center CCI

31

33.7%

0.4

86

45

52.3%

0

0

N/A

86

45

52.3%

CIM

41

33.3%

0.2

4

4

N/A

2

2

N/A

6

6

N/A

DVI

37

47.3%

0.6

55

40

72.7%

0

0

N/A

55

40

72.7%

HDSP

41

0.0%

0.3

3

2

N/A

0

0

N/A

3

2

N/A

LAC

30

44.2%

0.3

43

14

32.6%

0

0

N/A

43

14

32.6%
54.1%

NKSP

35

49.5%

0.6

111

60

54.1%

0

0

N/A

111

60

RJD

29

46.4%

0.6

27

21

77.8%

1

1

N/A

28

22

N/A

SQ

29

55.9%

0.7

34

26

76.5%

0

0

N/A

34

26

76.5%

SRITA

52

0.0%

0.1

0

0

N/A

1

1

N/A

1

1

N/A

WSP

31

50.4%

0.6

71

57.3%

N/A

56.8%

0.5

283

58.1%

4

N/A

125
492

71

45.9%

1
5

0

32

124
487

287

58.3%

32

0.0%

0.5

N/A

N/A

N/A

3

N/A

0

N/A

6
6

3

0.5

0
0

0

0.0%

6
6

3

32

3

N/A
41.3%

Sub-Total

Female
Institutions

CIW

Sub-Total
Reception Center CCWF

Sub-Total
Grand Total

32

10.9%

0.5

46

19

41.3%

0

0

N/A

46

19

CIW

33

20.0%

0.7

5

4

N/A

0

0

N/A

5

4

N/A

VSPW

30

30.3%

0.6

20

60.6%

N/A

60.6%

0.5

43

51.2%

0

N/A

33
84

20

19.0%

0
0

0

31

33
84

43

51.2%

66,921

36,875

55.1%

49,094

37,010

116,015

73,885

63.7%

75.4%

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

Appendix E
Three-Year Recidivism Rates*
By Security Housing Unit (SHU) Institution and
Time Between SHU and Parole
Adult Felons Released in FY 2007-08

Institution1
CCI ‐ SHU
Parole from SHU
Within 14 DAYS
15 ‐ 30 DAYS
OVER 30 DAYS

TOTAL RECIDIVATED
TOTAL
IN THREE YEARS
NUMBER
RELEASED
N
Rate

99
94
10
827

74 74.7%
72 76.6%
8 N/A
583 70.5%

First Releases
One Year

N

Rate

40 53.3%
33 50.8%
N/A
3
187 42.7%

Re‐Releases

Two Years

Three Years

N

N

Rate

49 65.3%
41 63.1%
N/A
5
259 59.1%

Rate

54 72.0%
47 72.3%
N/A
5
276 63.0%

One Year

N

Rate

N/A
11
N/A
20
N/A
2
250 64.3%

Two Years

Three Years

N

N

Rate

N/A
17
N/A
24
N/A
3
286 73.5%

Rate

N/A
20
N/A
25
N/A
3
307 78.9%

CCW ‐ SHU
OVER 30 DAYS

4

3

N/A

0

N/A

1

N/A

1

N/A

1

N/A

1

N/A

2

N/A

CIW ‐ SHU
OVER 30 DAYS

3

0

N/A

0

N/A

0

N/A

0

N/A

0

N/A

0

N/A

0

N/A

204
164
41
4,607

151
125
28
3,066

75
58
15
840

53.6%
50.4%
46.9%
39.1%

100
79
22
1,084

71.4%
68.7%
68.8%
50.5%

103
86
23
1,180

73.6%
74.8%
71.9%
55.0%

CTF ‐ SHU
OVER 30 DAYS

1

1

N/A

0

N/A

1

N/A

1

N/A

0

N/A

0

N/A

0

N/A

FSP ‐ SHU
OVER 30 DAYS

11

2

N/A

0

N/A

0

N/A

0

N/A

2

N/A

2

N/A

2

N/A

COR ‐ SHU
Parole from SHU
Within 14 DAYS
15 ‐ 30 DAYS
OVER 30 DAYS

PBSP ‐ SHU
Parole from SHU
Within 14 DAYS
15 ‐ 30 DAYS
OVER 30 DAYS

10
48
2
206

74.0%
76.2%
68.3%
66.6%

6 N/A
33 68.8%
1 N/A
142 68.9%

N/A
5
16 34.8%
N/A
1
20 28.6%

N/A
6
25 54.3%
N/A
1
33 47.1%

N/A
6
31 67.4%
N/A
1
36 51.4%

39 60.9%
34 69.4%
N/A
4
1,515 61.6%

N/A
0
N/A
2
N/A
0
87 64.0%

46 71.9%
39 79.6%
N/A
5
1,796 73.0%

N/A
0
N/A
2
N/A
0
98 72.1%

48 75.0%
39 79.6%
N/A
5
1,886 76.6%

N/A
0
N/A
2
N/A
0
106 77.9%

SAC ‐ SHU
OVER 30 DAYS

3

1

N/A

0

N/A

0

N/A

0

N/A

1

N/A

1

N/A

1

N/A

SQ ‐ SHU
OVER 30 DAYS

3

2

N/A

0

N/A

0

N/A

0

N/A

1

N/A

1

N/A

2

N/A

VSPW ‐ SHU
Parole from SHU
Within 14 DAYS
15 ‐ 30 DAYS
OVER 30 DAYS
NO SHU
TOTAL

21
10
6
229

16 N/A
9 N/A
6 N/A
173 75.5%

109,412
116,015

69,383 63.4%
73,885 63.7%

N/A
6
N/A
7
N/A
3
42 46.2%

N/A
8
N/A
8
N/A
3
55 60.4%

N/A
9
N/A
8
N/A
3
62 68.1%

N/A
6
N/A
1
N/A
3
107 77.5%

N/A
7
N/A
1
N/A
3
111 80.4%

24,022 37.7% 31,638 49.7% 34,943 54.9% 27,601 60.3% 32,787 71.6% 34,440 75.3%
25,373 37.9% 33,418 49.9% 36,875 55.1% 29,676 60.4% 35,225 71.8% 37,010 75.4%

* Recidivism rates were not calculated when fewer than 30 offenders were released.
1.

N/A
6
N/A
1
N/A
3
96 69.6%

Note: Not necessarily institution from which offenders paroled.

89

90

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

Three-Year Recidivism Rates*
By Security Housing Unit (SHU) Institution
and Total Time Spent in a SHU1
Adult Felons Released in FY 2007-08
Institution2
CCI ‐ SHU
1 Year
2 Years
3 Years
4 Years
5 Years
6+ Years

TOTAL RECIDIVATED
TOTAL
IN THREE YEARS
NUMBER
RELEASED
N
Rate

859
94
34
12
7
24

613 71.4%
73 77.7%
23 67.6%
7 N/A
6 N/A
15 N/A

First Releases
One Year

N

Rate

216 44.9%
37 58.7%
N/A
4
N/A
2
N/A
2
N/A
2

Re‐Releases

Two Years

Three Years

N

N

Rate

290 60.3%
45 71.4%
N/A
10
N/A
3
N/A
2
N/A
4

Rate

314 65.3%
45 71.4%
N/A
10
N/A
6
N/A
2
N/A
5

One Year

N

Rate

242 64.0%
21 67.7%
N/A
8
N/A
1
N/A
3
N/A
8

Two Years

Three Years

N

N

Rate

278 73.5%
25 80.6%
N/A
13
N/A
1
N/A
3
N/A
10

Rate

299 79.1%
28 90.3%
N/A
13
N/A
1
N/A
4
N/A
10

CCW ‐ SHU
1 Year

4

3

N/A

0

N/A

1

N/A

1

N/A

1

N/A

1

N/A

2

N/A

CIW ‐ SHU
1 Year

3

0

N/A

0

N/A

0

N/A

0

N/A

0

N/A

0

N/A

0

N/A

COR ‐ SHU
1 Year
2 Years
3 Years
4 Years
5 Years
6+ Years

4,675
193
70
30
16
32

3,124
137
57
18
15
19

CTF ‐ SHU
1 Year

1

1

N/A

0

N/A

1

N/A

1

N/A

0

N/A

0

N/A

0

N/A

FSP ‐ SHU
1 Year
2 Years
3 Years

8
2
1

2
0
0

N/A
N/A
N/A

0
0
0

N/A

0
0
0

N/A

0
0
0

N/A

2
0
0

N/A

2
0
0

N/A

2
0
0

N/A

PBSP ‐ SHU
1 Year
2 Years
3 Years
4 Years
5 Years
6+ Years

87
69
41
18
11
40

58
49
29
12
7
27

66.7%
71.0%
70.7%
N/A
N/A
67.5%

SAC ‐ SHU
1 Year
2 Years
4 Years

1
1
1

0
0
1

N/A
N/A
N/A

0
0
0

N/A

SQ ‐ SHU
1 Year
3 Years
5 Years

1
1
1

1
0
1

N/A
N/A
N/A

0
0
0

N/A

VSPW ‐ SHU
1 Year
2 Years
3 Years
4 Years
6+ Years

256
5
1
3
1

66.8%
71.0%
81.4%
60.0%
N/A
59.4%

197 77.0%
4 N/A
1 N/A
2 N/A
0 N/A

910 40.2%
47 49.0%
20 54.1%
N/A
5
N/A
2
N/A
4

N/A
N/A

9 23.7%
N/A
9
N/A
8
N/A
3
N/A
3
N/A
10

N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A

54 50.5%
N/A
2
N/A
1
N/A
1
N/A
0

1,179 52.0%
61 63.5%
28 75.7%
N/A
6
N/A
3
N/A
8

N/A
N/A

16 42.1%
N/A
13
N/A
15
N/A
4
N/A
3
N/A
14

0
0
0

N/A

0
0
0

N/A

N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A

69 64.5%
N/A
2
N/A
1
N/A
2
N/A
0

1,282 56.6%
64 66.7%
29 78.4%
N/A
6
N/A
3
N/A
8

N/A
N/A

19 50.0%
N/A
16
N/A
16
N/A
5
N/A
3
N/A
15

0
0
0

N/A

0
0
0

N/A

N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A

77 72.0%
N/A
2
N/A
1
N/A
2
N/A
0

1,480 61.4%
58 59.8%
25 75.8%
N/A
10
N/A
12
N/A
7

N/A
N/A

31 63.3%
27 67.5%
N/A
10
N/A
7
N/A
3
N/A
11

0
0
1

N/A

1
0
0

N/A

N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A

105 70.5%
N/A
1
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
0

1,754 72.8%
71 73.2%
28 84.8%
N/A
12
N/A
12
N/A
9

N/A
N/A

37 75.5%
31 77.5%
N/A
11
N/A
7
N/A
3
N/A
11

0
0
1

N/A

1
0
0

N/A

N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A

116 77.9%
N/A
1
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
0

1,842 76.5%
73 75.3%
28 84.8%
N/A
12
N/A
12
N/A
11

N/A
N/A

39 79.6%
33 82.5%
N/A
13
N/A
7
N/A
4
N/A
12

0
0
1

N/A

1
0
1

N/A

N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A

120 80.5%
N/A
2
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
0

Any SHU
6,603
4,502 68.2%
1,351 41.3% 1,780 54.4% 1,932 59.0% 2,075 62.3% 2,438 73.2% 2,570 77.2%
NO SHU
109,412 69,383 63.4% 24,022 37.7% 31,638 49.7% 34,943 54.9% 27,601 60.3% 32,787 71.6% 34,440 75.3%
TOTAL
116,015 73,885 63.7% 25,373 37.9% 33,418 49.9% 36,875 55.1% 29,676 60.4% 35,225 71.8% 37,010 75.4%
* Recidivism rates were not calculated when fewer than 30 offenders were released.
1.

Total time in a SHU for parole term case.

2.

Last SHU prior to parole.

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report

91

October 2012

Appendix F
Substance Abuse Treatment Programs
Adult Male Felons Released in FY 2007-08
Three Year Recidivism Rates by Program Location
Institution Facility/Building
ASP
CCI
CCI
CIM
CMC
CRC

COR
CTF
CVSP
RJD

FTTP
ISP
KVSP
LAC
NKSP
PVSP
SATF
SCC

SOL
WSP
MCOP‐
SASCA
MRA‐
SASCA

SASCA

Total

Avenal State Prison‐A
CA Correctional Institute‐A
CA Correctional Institute‐B
CA Institute for Men‐A
CA Institute for Men‐B
CA Men's Colony‐West‐A
CA Rehabilitation Center‐A
CA Rehabilitation Center‐C
CA Rehabilitation Center‐E
CA Rehabilitation Center‐G
CA Rehabilitation Center‐J
CA State Prison, Corcoran‐A
Correctional Training Facility ‐ South‐A
Correctional Training Facility ‐ South‐B
Chuckawalla Valley State Prison‐A
R J Donovan Correctional Facility‐A
R J Donovan Correctional Facility‐B
R J Donovan Correctional Facility‐C
R J Donovan Correctional Facility‐D
Folsom Transitional Treatment Program‐A
Ironwood State Prison‐A
Kern Valley State Prison‐A
CA State Prison, Los Angeles County‐A
North Kern State Prison‐A
Pleasant Valley State Prison‐B
Substance Abuse Treatment Facility‐Corcoran‐A
Substance Abuse Treatment Facility‐Corcoran‐B
Sierra Conservation Center‐A
Sierra Conservation Center‐B
Sierra Conservation Center‐C
CA State Prison, Solano‐A
CA State Prison, Solano‐B
Wasco State Prison‐A
Mandatory Conditions of Parole (SASCA)‐1
Mandatory Conditions of Parole (SASCA)‐3
Mandatory Conditions of Parole (SASCA)‐4
Mandatory Residential Aftercase‐SB1453 (SASCA)‐1
Mandatory Residential Aftercase‐SB1453 (SASCA)‐2
Mandatory Residential Aftercase‐SB1453 (SASCA)‐3
Mandatory Residential Aftercase‐SB1453 (SASCA)‐4
Substance Abuse Services Coordination Agency‐1
Substance Abuse Services Coordination Agency‐2
Substance Abuse Services Coordination Agency‐3
Substance Abuse Services Coordination Agency‐4

TOTAL  TOTAL RECIDIVATED
NUMBER  IN THREE YEARS
RELEASED
N
Rate

         332
         294
           91
         334
         341
         366
         143
         189
         158
         246
           46
         380
         385
         332
         528
         113
         114
         125
           65
         781
         208
         104
         126
     1,504
         292
     1,231
     1,087
         229
         256
           57
         320
         189
     1,696
             1
           14
           10
         139
           97
         197
         202
         604
         420
         584
         721
   15,651

      217
      183
        55
      208
      205
      251
        97
      122
      104
      160
        30
      236
      223
      251
      356
        91
        84
        74
        44
      485
      154
        73
        96
      853
      228
      808
      669
      170
      147
        39
      225
      128
  1,163
            1
            4
            5
          64
          45
          87
       101
       413
       284
       290
       434
    9,957

65.4%
62.2%
60.4%
62.3%
60.1%
68.6%
67.8%
64.6%
65.8%
65.0%
65.2%
62.1%
57.9%
75.6%
67.4%
80.5%
73.7%
59.2%
67.7%
62.1%
74.0%
70.2%
76.2%
56.7%
78.1%
65.6%
61.5%
74.2%
57.4%
68.4%
70.3%
67.7%
68.6%
N/A
N/A
N/A
46.0%
N/A
44.2%
50.0%
68.4%
67.6%
49.7%
60.2%
63.6%

First Releases
One Year

N
75
88
37
91
86
79
43
47
37
55
19
86
92
124
120
36
37
23
20
213
73
45
46
394
118
329
314
76
66
23
98
66
534
1
1
2
35
24
40
54
111
103
143
215
4,319

Rate
33.0%
37.8%
42.5%
34.2%
32.6%
36.1%
43.0%
36.4%
34.6%
35.7%
42.2%
32.5%
32.5%
54.6%
36.1%
49.3%
50.0%
29.9%
35.7%

36.4%
47.1%
48.9%

56.1%
31.6%
57.0%
37.1%
36.0%
50.3%
31.4%
48.9%
43.6%
44.9%
43.1%
N/A
N/A
N/A

25.5%
25.5%

20.4%
27.7%
36.4%
39.2%
25.5%
32.9%
36.6%

Two Years

N
105
126
49
130
130
112
59
64
52
78
28
123
130
151
167
52
47
33
32
293
98
56
58
571
146
474
449
98
95
29
127
87
720
1
3
3
51
36
68
80
157
147
226
334
6,075

Rate
46.3%
54.1%
56.3%
48.9%
49.2%
51.1%
59.0%
49.6%
48.6%
50.6%
62.2%
46.4%
45.9%
66.5%
50.3%
71.2%
63.5%
42.9%
57.1%

50.1%
63.2%
60.9%

70.7%
45.8%
70.5%
53.5%
51.4%
64.9%
45.2%
61.7%
56.4%
59.2%
58.1%
N/A
N/A
N/A

37.2%
38.3%

34.7%
41.0%
51.5%
55.9%
40.3%
51.1%
51.5%

Re‐Releases
Three Years

N
129
138
53
151
144
134
64
72
65
87
29
142
147
163
193
57
51
38
35
325
109
64
61
654
154
522
501
103
108
30
144
95
779
1
3
3
62
42
87
95
175
161
276
383
6,829

Rate
56.8%
59.2%
60.9%
56.8%
54.5%
61.2%
64.0%
55.8%
60.7%
56.5%
64.4%
53.6%
51.9%
71.8%
58.1%
78.1%
68.9%
49.4%
62.5%

55.6%
70.3%
69.6%

74.4%
52.4%
74.4%
58.9%
57.4%
68.2%
51.4%
63.8%
64.0%
64.6%
62.9%
N/A
N/A
N/A

45.3%
44.7%

44.4%
48.7%
57.4%
61.2%
49.2%
58.6%
57.9%

One Year

Two Years

N
Rate
N
83
74 70.5%
38 62.3%
41
N/A
2
2
49 72.1%
56
43 55.8%
58
96 65.3% 114
29 67.4%
32
39 65.0%
49
35 68.6%
38
57 62.0%
69
N/A
1
1
77 67.0%
90
63 61.8%
74
67 63.8%
82
122 62.2% 154
31 77.5%
34
25 62.5%
31
28 58.3%
33
N/A
8
9
122 62.2% 152
33 62.3%
42
N/A
8
9
25 56.8%
33
152 59.4% 190
62 72.9%
70
222 64.3% 269
138 64.5% 162
55 70.5%
63
29 63.0%
37
N/A
8
5
64 67.4%
74
27 64.3%
33
311 68.1% 374
N/A
0
0
N/A
1
1
N/A
1
2
N/A
2
2
N/A
3
3
N/A
0
0
N/A
3
5
195 65.2% 230
101 64.3% 117
N/A
10
12
37 55.2%
48
2,490 64.5% 2,986

Rate
79.0%
67.2%
N/A

82.4%
75.3%
77.6%
74.4%
81.7%
74.5%
75.0%
N/A

78.3%
72.5%
78.1%
78.6%
85.0%
77.5%
68.8%
N/A

77.6%
79.2%
N/A

75.0%
74.2%
82.4%
78.0%
75.7%
80.8%
80.4%
N/A

77.9%
78.6%
81.8%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

76.9%
74.5%
N/A

71.6%
77.3%

Three Years

N
88
45
2
57
61
117
33
50
39
73
1
94
76
88
163
34
33
36
9
160
45
9
35
199
74
286
168
67
39
9
81
33
384
0
1
2
2
3
0
6
238
123
14
51
3,128

Rate
83.8%
73.8%
N/A

83.8%
79.2%
79.6%
76.7%
83.3%
76.5%
79.3%
N/A

81.7%
74.5%
83.8%
83.2%
85.0%
82.5%
75.0%
N/A

81.6%
84.9%
N/A

79.5%
77.7%
87.1%
82.9%
78.5%
85.9%
84.8%
N/A

85.3%
78.6%
84.0%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

79.6%
78.3%
N/A

76.1%
81.0%

92

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

Substance Abuse Treatment Programs
Adult Female Felons Released in FY 2007-08
Three Year Recidivism Rates by Program Location
Institution Facility/Building
CCWF

Central California Woman's Facility‐A
Central California Woman's Facility‐B
CIW
CA Institute for Women‐A
CA Institute for Women‐B
CA Institute for Women‐C
CRC
CA Rehabilitation Center‐D
VSPW Valley State Prison for Women‐A
Valley State Prison for Women‐B
DTF
Drug Treatment Furlough‐Region 2
FOTEP Female Offender Treatment & Emplymnt Pgm‐1
Female Offender Treatment & Emplymnt Pgm‐2
Female Offender Treatment & Emplymnt Pgm‐3
Female Offender Treatment & Emplymnt Pgm‐4
MCOP‐ Mandatory Conditions of Parole (SASCA)‐1
SASCA Mandatory Conditions of Parole (SASCA)‐2
Mandatory Conditions of Parole (SASCA)‐3
Mandatory Conditions of Parole (SASCA)‐4
MRA‐
Mandatory Conditions of Parole (FOTEP)‐3
FOTEP
MRA‐ Mandatory Residential Aftercase‐SB1453 (SASCA)‐1
SASCA Mandatory Residential Aftercase‐SB1453 (SASCA)‐2
Mandatory Residential Aftercase‐SB1453 (SASCA)‐3
Mandatory Residential Aftercase‐SB1453 (SASCA)‐4
SASCA Substance Abuse Services Coordination Agency‐1
Substance Abuse Services Coordination Agency‐2
Substance Abuse Services Coordination Agency‐3
Substance Abuse Services Coordination Agency‐4
Total

TOTAL  TOTAL RECIDIVATED
NUMBER  IN THREE YEARS
RELEASED
N
Rate

         459
         475
         698
           43
         134
         118
         468
         641
             1
           55
           20
           76
           86
           46
             4
             8
             7

      232
      213
      398
        19
        58
        58
      239
      323
0
        26
           3
        34
        41
          19
            1
            4
            2

           10             4
           85
           68
           87
           59
           53
           51
         120
         107
     3,979

          26
          22
          27
          19
          28
          27
          42
          40
   1,905

50.5%
44.8%
57.0%
44.2%
43.3%
49.2%
51.1%
50.4%
N/A
47.3%
N/A
44.7%
47.7%
41.3%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
30.6%
32.4%
31.0%
32.2%
52.8%
52.9%
35.0%
37.4%
47.9%

First Releases
One Year

Two Years

N
Rate
91 25.2%
99 24.3%
87 24.2%
6 18.8%
20 20.8%
14 18.4%
103 27.8%
129 26.7%
N/A
0
10 22.7%
N/A
1
11 18.6%
15 21.1%
11 26.2%
N/A
1
N/A
2
N/A
2

N
137
135
132
10
24
21
141
185
0
13
2
19
21
17
1
3
2

N/A

N/A

4

N/A

0

N/A

0

N/A

0

N/A

20
22
13 19.1%
19
7 8.0%
16
8 13.6%
15
17 37.8%
22
17 34.0%
24
14 13.5%
27
17 21.0%
24
716 23.7% 1,035

25.9%

26
22
27
19
22
26
34
29
1,237

30.6%

0
0
0
0
6
0
3
5
500

N/A

0
0
0
0
6
1
7
9
633

N/A

0
0
0
0
6
1
8
11
668

N/A

32.2%
29.6%
40.5%
N/A
N/A

27.9%

18.4%
25.4%

48.9%
48.0%
26.0%
29.6%
34.2%

42.9%

1

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

0
0
0

N/A

N/A
N/A

42.4%
42.3%

N/A

32.4%

31.0%
32.2%

48.9%
52.0%
32.7%
35.8%
40.9%

N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

52.5%

Rate
73.5%
70.1%
65.5%

Three Years

3

23.5%

N/A

N
72
47
222
7
24
29
72
110
0
7
0
8
11
1
0
0
0

40.9%

N
Rate
60 61.2%
34 50.7%
176 51.9%
N/A
3
21 55.3%
25 59.5%
58 59.2%
89 56.7%
N/A
0
N/A
4
N/A
0
N/A
6
N/A
9

Two Years

N/A

N/A
29.5%

Rate
42.7%
40.2%
45.1%
37.5%
34.4%
35.5%
44.6%
43.4%

One Year

N
154
164
162
12
33
27
165
210
0
18
3
25
30
18
1
4
2

1

Rate
38.0%
33.1%
36.8%
31.3%
25.0%
27.6%
38.1%
38.2%

Re‐Releases
Three Years

Rate
79.6%
73.1%
69.6%

N/A

N
78
49
236
7
25
31
74
113
0
8
0
9
11
1
0
0
0

N/A

63.2%
69.0%
73.5%
70.1%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

66.5%

N/A

65.8%
73.8%
75.5%
72.0%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

70.2%

2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report
October 2012

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Office of Research, Research and Evaluation Branch
On the World Wide Web at:

http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/adult_research_branch

93