7

California Department of Corrections
And Rehabilitation

Female Realignment Report
An Examination of Female Offenders Released from State
Prison in the First Year of Public Safety Realignment

Office of Research
May 2014

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 221-N
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

Office of Research, Research and Evaluation Branch
Jeffrey A. Beard, Ph.D., Secretary
Diana Toche, D.D.S., Undersecretary (A)
Bryan Beyer, Director
Office of Research
G. Wayne Babby, Deputy Director (A)
Denise Allen, Chief of Research
Kevin Grassel, Research Program Specialist III
Dionne Maxwell, Ph.D., Research Manager II
Angela D. Broadus, Ph.D., Research Program Specialist II
Matthew Nakao, Research Program Specialist I (A)

Permission is granted to reproduce reports.
For questions regarding the contents of this report, please contact
Denise Allen, Chief Research and Evaluation Branch.

Table of Contents
1

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

2

Demographics ........................................................................................................................................ 3
2.1

3

Cohort Demographic Comparisons ............................................................................................... 3

Outcomes ............................................................................................................................................... 7
3.1

Arrests ........................................................................................................................................... 7

3.1.1

Pre- and Post-Realignment One-Year Arrest Rates ................................................................. 8

3.1.2

Arrest Types ............................................................................................................................ 10

3.1.3

Number of Arrests per Person Released ................................................................................ 12

3.1.4

Number of Times Offenders Were Arrested ........................................................................... 13

3.2

Convictions .................................................................................................................................. 14

3.2.1

Pre- and Post-Realignment One-Year Conviction Rates ........................................................ 14

3.2.2

Conviction Types ..................................................................................................................... 15

3.2.3

Number of Times Offenders Were Convicted ......................................................................... 16

3.3

Returns to Prison ........................................................................................................................ 17

3.3.1

Pre- and Post-Realignment One-Year Return to Prison Rates .............................................. 17

3.3.2

Pre- and Post-Realignment Types of Returns to Prison ......................................................... 19

4

Data Quality ......................................................................................................................................... 20

5

Study Limitations .................................................................................................................................. 20

6

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 20

7

References ........................................................................................................................................... 22

Appendix A One-Year Arrest Rates by County of Release Pre-Realignment (Released between
10/01/2010 and 9/30/2011) and Post-Realignment (Released between 10/01/2011 and 9/30/2012) ....... 24
Appendix B One-Year Conviction Rates by County of Release Pre-Realignment (Released between
10/01/2010 and 9/30/2011) and Post-Realignment (Released between 10/01/2011 and 9/30/2012) ....... 26
Appendix C One-Year Return to Prison Rates by County of Release Pre-Realignment (Released between
10/01/2010 and 9/30/2011) and Post-Realignment (Released between 10/01/2011 and 9/30/2012) ....... 28

List of Tables and Figures
Tables
Table 1. Pre- and Post-Realignment Release Cohort Characteristics ........................................................ 5
Table 2. One-Year Arrest Rates, Comparison Between Release Cohorts .................................................. 9
Table 3. Arrest Types, Comparison Between Release Cohorts ................................................................ 11
Table 4. Number of Arrests Per Person Released, Comparison Between Release Cohorts .................... 13
Table 5. Count of Arrest Cycles, Comparison Between Release Cohorts ................................................ 13
Table 6. One-Year Conviction Rates, Comparison Between Release Cohorts ......................................... 15
Table 7. Conviction Types, Comparison Between Release Cohorts ......................................................... 16
Table 8. New Convictions, Comparison Between Release Cohorts .......................................................... 17
Table 9. One-Year Return to Prison Rates, Comparison Between Release Cohorts ............................... 18
Table 10. Return Types, Comparison Between Release Cohorts ............................................................. 19

Figures
Figure A: One-Year Arrest and Conviction Rates ........................................................................................ ii
Figure B: Type of Return to State Prison .....................................................................................................iii
Figure 1. One-Year Arrest Rates, Comparison Between Release Cohorts ................................................. 8
Figure 2. Arrest Types, Comparison Between Release Cohorts ............................................................... 10
Figure 3. Number of Arrests Per Person Released, Comparison Between Release Cohorts ................... 12
Figure 4. One-Year Conviction Rates, Comparison Between Release Cohorts ....................................... 14
Figure 5. Conviction Types, Comparison Between Release Cohorts ........................................................ 15
Figure 6. One-Year Return to Prison Rates, Comparison Between Release Cohorts .............................. 17
Figure 7. Return Types, Comparison Between Release Cohorts .............................................................. 19

Realignment Report

i

May 2014

Executive Summary
Introduction
California’s Public Safety Realignment Act of
2011 transferred jurisdiction and funding for
managing lower-level criminal offenders from the
State to the counties. Under Realignment, for
example, certain lower level felons now serve
their felony sentences in jail rather than prison.
Realignment also changed California’s system of
community corrections. Prior to Realignment,
State parole agents supervised every female
inmate released from prison, and parole violators
could be revoked to State prison for up to one
year.
Since October 1, 2011, probation departments
have administered a system of post-release
community supervision (PRCS) to complement
State parole. State parole agents continue to
supervise high-risk sex offenders, lifers, and any
other female offenders who are released from
prison after having been incarcerated for a
current/prior serious or violent crime. All other
female inmates released from prison are placed
on PRCS. No offenders received an early
release from prison under Realignment.
If offenders violate the terms of PRCS or State
parole supervision, a range of sanctions may be
used by counties, including a revocation term in
jail. Only certain offenders are eligible for
revocation to State prison. Prior Realignment
research
conducted
by
the
California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(CDCR) evaluated all offenders. This report
examines arrest, convictions, and returns to
prison for female offenders pre- and
post-Realignment. Female offenders have
“distinct rehabilitative and health care needs, and
are more likely to have suffered trauma and
abuse prior to incarceration” (California
Association of Drug Court Professionals, 2012).

As such, CDCR is committed to providing
gender-responsive programs and services to
meet those needs and, ultimately, increase
successful return to society for our female
population.
CDCR now has one year of releases and one full
year of follow-up data to evaluate how female
offenders released from prison during the first
year after implementation have fared. Note that a
more complete examination of Realignment’s
impact on female offenders would require a
three-year follow-up period.
Methodology
For this study, we identified two cohorts of
female offenders: 1) the Pre-Realignment cohort
of female offenders released between October 1,
2010 and September 30, 2011; and, 2) the
Post-Realignment cohort of female offenders
released between October 1, 2011 and
September 30, 2012. One-year post-release
recidivism rates were tracked for both cohorts to
see if they were re-arrested, convicted of a new
crime, or returned to State prison. Sound
methodology and procedures were followed for
this study; however, the study focuses on only
one year of releases, representing an early stage
of post-Realignment activity and implementation.
Therefore, caution should be used when
interpreting the findings.
Key Findings
Overall, data shows that there is very little
difference between female offenders and their
outcomes following release after completing their
State prison term pre- and post-Realignment
(Figure A). The post-Realignment arrest rate was
slightly higher than pre-Realignment (1.5
percent), while the post-realignment conviction
rate was slightly lower (1.2 percent).

Realignment Report
May 2014

Pre- and Post-Realignment One-Year
Outcomes
Arrests
Figure A: One-Year Arrest and Conviction Rates

 Post-Realignment female offenders were
arrested at a slightly higher rate on average
than were pre-Realignment offenders (48.1
percent and 46.6 percent, respectively).
 Both female offender cohorts were more
likely to be arrested for a felony than for a
misdemeanor or supervision violation. In
addition, there was a slight increase in the
percent
of
pre-Realignment
and
post-Realignment felony arrests (42.8
percent and 43.0 percent, respectively).
 Post-Realignment offenders had fewer
arrests for misdemeanors than did preRealignment offenders (22.2 percent and
26.9 percent, respectively), and more
arrests for supervision violations (34.8
percent and 30.3 percent, respectively). The
most common felony arrests for both
cohorts were for drug and property crimes.
 Post-Realignment offenders had slightly
more arrests per person on average than
did the pre-Realignment offenders (1.14 and
0.93, respectively). This trend occurred for
every month, except one (February 2012)
after October 2011.
 Over half of the pre-Realignment and postRealignment female offenders had no
arrests in the year after release (53.4
percent and 51.9 percent, respectively);
while another third had one to two arrests
(34.7
percent
and
32.0
percent,
respectively). However, post-Realignment
female offenders were more likely than were
pre-Realignment offenders to have a total of
three or more arrests (16.1 percent and 11.8
percent, respectively).

Convictions
 Post-Realignment female offenders were
convicted of new crimes less often than
were pre-Realignment offenders (16.7
percent and 17.9 percent, respectively). In
addition, there was a downward trend for
these offenders over the time span studied.
 Of those who did not recidivate within the
first year after release, a higher percentage
were
post-Realignment
than
preRealignment female offenders (83.3 percent
and 82.1 percent, respectively). In addition,
fewer than 20 percent of offenders from
either cohort had one conviction (15.2
percent and 13.8 percent, respectively).
However, the post-Realignment cohort was
slightly more likely than was the
pre-Realignment cohort to have two or more
new convictions (2.8 percent vs. 2.7
percent).
 Post-Realignment female offenders were
more likely to be convicted of a felony than
were pre-Realignment offenders (59.9
percent and 54.5 percent, respectively);
however, for both cohorts the most common
felony convictions were for drug and
property crimes.

ii

Realignment Report

iii

May 2014

Returns to Prison
 Post-Realignment female offenders returned
to prison at a significantly lower rate than
did pre-Realignment offenders (2.6 percent
and 20.3 percent, respectively), an intended
effect of Realignment.
 Post-Realignment, all of the female
offenders who returned to prison did so for a
new conviction rather than a parole
violation. Because of Realignment, only
certain offenders are eligible to return to
prison on a parole violation (e.g., third
strikers, mentally disordered offenders).
Figure B: Type of Return to State Prison

and 1.3 percent, respectively). However,
population
percentages
for
Native
American/Alaskan Native and Other groups
are similar both pre- and post-Realignment.
 The majority of releases were first releases,
determinately sentenced, not committed for
a serious or violent crime, and not required
to register as a sex offender. Over half had
no correctional mental health designation,
but approximately 40 percent in both
cohorts were under the Correctional Clinical
Case Management System.
 Based on the California Static Risk
Assessment, the percent of offenders with
low and medium risk levels increased
slightly from pre- to post-Realignment (3.3
percent and 0.3 percent, respectively), while
the percent of high risk offenders decreased
(3.3 percent).
 The post-Realignment cohort had slightly
more offenders whose current commitment
offense was serious or violent than the
pre-Realignment cohort (19.6 percent and
14.5 percent, respectively).

Demographic and Offender Characteristics
 The post-Realignment and pre-Realignment
groups appear similar demographically with
minor changes in the composition of age
and race. The post-Realignment cohort has
fewer offenders than the pre-Realignment
cohort in the 25-29 age group (16.7 percent
and 18.4 percent, respectively), and more
female offenders age 45 and older than
does the pre-Realignment cohort (25.7
percent and 24.0 percent, respectively).
 Post-Realignment female offenders are less
likely to be White than are pre-Realignment
offenders (36.8 percent and 37.4 percent,
respectively), and slightly more likely to be
Hispanic (32.7 percent and 32.5 percent,
respectively), Black (26.1 percent and 25.9
percent, respectively), or Asian (1.5 percent

Realignment Report

1

May 2014

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Female Realignment Report
An Examination of Female Offenders Released from State Prison
in the First Year of Public Safety Realignment

1 Introduction
On October 1, 2011, the State of California and its counties were tasked with implementing one
of the most significant changes in the history of the State’s criminal justice system. California’s
Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011 (hereafter referred to as Realignment), revised the
definition of a felony to include certain crimes punishable by more than one year in jail.
Individuals convicted of non-serious,1 non-violent,2 non-sex registrant3 (non-non-non) crimes
may now be sentenced to county jail and/or alternative custody programs4 instead of State
prison. As such, Realignment reserves state prison for those with serious or violent convictions
(current or prior), sex registrants, and a few other offense types (e.g., battery against a juror,
sale of a person for immoral purposes).
The intent of Realignment is to encourage counties to develop and implement evidence-based
practices and alternatives to incarceration to limit future crimes and reduce victimization. This is
particularly important for female offenders who represent a unique population within corrections.
Over 60 percent of these females may be mothers with minor children (Glaze and Maruschak,
2010), resulting in far-reaching, destabilization for more than just the females who violated the
law. Recognition of the potential long-term impact of incarceration has prompted advocacy for
alternatives to incarceration (Covington and Bloom, 2006; and Saar, Bisnott, and
Mathon-Mathieu, 2010). Notably, prior to Realignment, California already was one of 32 states
offering alternatives to incarceration for women with minor children (Saar, Bisnott, and
Mathon-Mathieu, 2010), and this issue is further addressed through the intent of Realignment.
A premise of Realignment is that provision of community-based support services would increase
offenders’ potential to re-integrate successfully into their communities. This also is particularly
important for female offenders who are more likely to be minority, lower socio-economic status,
lack education and employment, and suffer from a history of substance dependence and
domestic and/or sexual victimization (Covington and Bloom, 2006; Hardyman & Van Voorhis,
2004, and Wright, Van Voorhis, Salisbury, and Bauman, 2012). In addition, the path to
criminality may differ from that of men resulting in a greater percentage of nonviolent, property
and substance-related crimes (Wright et al, 2012). According to the National Women’s Law
Center (Saar, Bisnott, and Mathon-Mathieu, 2010), “females have borne a disproportionate
burden of the war on drugs, resulting in a monumental increase of females who are facing
incarceration for the first time, overwhelmingly for non-violent offenses” (p. 5). Recognition of
these qualitative differences in female offenders has resulted in advocacy for gender-responsive
treatment in and out of prison (Bloom, Owen, and Covington, 2002; Covington and Bloom,
2006; Saar, Bisnott, and Mathon-Mathieu, 2010).

1

Serious offenses are defined in Penal Code (PC) § 1192.7(c) and 1192.8.
Violent offenses are defined in PC § 667.7(c).
3
Offenses requiring sex offender registration are defined in PC § 290.
4
Offenders may be sentenced to serve their entire time in county jail or may be sentenced to serve time
split between county jail and probation supervision.
2

Realignment Report
May 2014

Under PRCS, offenders released from State custody can be placed under a county-directed
PRCS program (instead of the State’s parole system) for up to three years. All 58 counties
designated their probation departments as the agency responsible for PRCS. State parole
agents continue to supervise high-risk sex offenders, lifers, and any other offenders who are
released from prison after having been incarcerated for a current serious or violent crime. If
offenders violate the terms of PRCS or State parole supervision, a range of sanctions may be
used by counties including reprimand, adding new release conditions and reporting
requirements, flash incarceration, or, if a court agrees, a revocation. Only certain offenders5 are
eligible to be revoked to State prison.
Offenders Tracked in this Report
This report evaluates the impact of Realignment on female offenders by comparing the rates of
arrest, conviction, and returns to prison after completing their State prison term in the first year
of Realignment with those released one year earlier. To evaluate the impact of Realignment,
two groups were created:
1) A pre-Realignment parolee release cohort that includes all female offenders released
from a CDCR State prison between October 1, 2010, and September 30, 2011, and
2) A post-Realignment parolee release cohort that includes all female offenders released
from a CDCR State prison between October 1, 2011, and September 30, 2012.6
Only the first release within the year for these offenders was counted. The post-Realignment
cohort includes females on State parole and PRCS, but not probationers released from county
jail or supervised in lieu of prison or jail (i.e., non-non-non offenders). This report, therefore,
tracks all female State parolees, but only a subset of those supervised by local probation
departments.
Demographic, arrest, conviction, and return to prison information is provided for female
offenders released from CDCR during the first year of Realignment (October to December 2011;
and January to September 2012) as more than one year has elapsed since their release. This
length of time allows for a sufficient amount of follow-up time to observe their behavior in the
community. The same information is provided for offenders released from CDCR during the
year immediately prior to Realignment (October to December 2010; and January to September
2011) for comparison purposes.
Data from CDCR’s Offender-Based Information System were used to create the two groups of
female offenders released from State prison pre- and post-Realignment, and to capture their
demographic information. The Department of Justice (DOJ), Criminal Justice Information
System, California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System, was used to capture arrest
and conviction data. Data derived from this system also were used to compute California Static
Risk Assessment (CSRA) scores at the time of release.
Measuring Arrests, Convictions, and Returns to Prison
Reoffending (also referred to as recidivism) may be measured using various methods. To
provide a comprehensive view of how female offenders fared following their release from prison,
5

6

Offenses eligible for revocation back to State prison are defined in PC § 3000(b) (4), 3000.08(h), and
3000.1.
Offenders whose supervision status changed after 30 days post-release (i.e., from parole to PRCS or
vice versa) were excluded from the analysis for the post-Realignment cohort.

2

Realignment Report
May 2014

this report tracked them in three ways. First, it tracked females released from prison and
subsequently arrested for a misdemeanor, felony or supervision violation within the one-year
period following their release. Second, it tracked females released from prison and then
convicted of a new crime, whether a misdemeanor or a felony, within the one-year period
following their release.7 Finally, it tracked female offenders released and then returned to
prison for a parole violation or new crime within the one-year period following their release.
Only the first arrest or conviction episode, as well as the most serious charge within the first
arrest or conviction episode, was counted (i.e., if an offender was arrested multiple times,
incurring multiple charges each time, only the most serious arrest charge within the first arrest
episode was counted in these analyses). Individuals also were tracked if they released to
parole/PRCS, discharged after being paroled or placed onto PRCS, or directly discharged from
CDCR during a specified period.
Rate calculation used the ratio of the number of felons in the cohort who were
arrested/convicted/returned to prison during the period studied to the total number of felons in
the cohort, multiplied by 100.
Arrest/Conviction/
=
Returned to Prison Rates

Number Arrested/Convicted/Returned to Prison
X 100
Number in Cohort

2 Demographics
The pre-Realignment cohort is comprised of 8,540 female offenders released from CDCR
between October 1, 2010, and September 30, 2011. The post-Realignment cohort is comprised
of 5,232 female offenders released from CDCR between October 1, 2011, and
September 30, 2012. There was a 38.7 percent decrease in releases between the two years.
This was expected given that almost all of the releases in the post-Realignment cohort had
offenses that make them ineligible to return to prison on a parole violation and be subsequently
re-released. In both cohorts, the majority of releases were first releases. The post-Realignment
cohort, however, had more first releases proportionally (85.1 percent) as compared to the preRealignment cohort (72.6 percent).

2.1 Cohort Demographic Comparisons
The demographic characteristics of the pre- and post-Realignment groups are presented in
Table 1. These data suggest that the pre- and post-Realignment cohorts differ in some
demographic areas and are similar in others. About two-thirds of releases for both cohorts are
between 25 and 44 years old (66.7 percent and 65.2 percent, respectively), just under 10
percent are under age 20 (9.3 percent and 9.1 percent, respectively), and approximately
one-fourth are age 45 and older (24.0 percent and 25.7 percent, respectively). However, the
proportion of female offenders in each age group over age 49 is larger than in the comparison
pre-Realignment group (e.g., age 50-54, 7.4 percent and 8.1 percent, respectively). This
suggests an older female population than found with the pre-Realignment group.

7

To calculate arrest and conviction one-year recidivism rates, each offender was tracked using DOJ data
for 365 days following their first release. Accordingly, any offender without a DOJ record was excluded
from all analyses. This resulted in the exclusion of 2,583 offenders who were almost evenly split
between the pre-Realignment cohort (1,205 excluded) and post-Realignment cohort (1,378 excluded).

3

Realignment Report
May 2014

The largest racial/ethnic group for pre- and post-Realignment offenders is White (37.4 percent
and 36.8 percent, respectively), followed by Hispanic/Latina (32.5 percent and 32.7 percent,
respectively), and then Black/African-American (25.9 percent and 26.1 percent, respectively).
The proportion of post-Realignment White female offenders is 0.6 percent lower than found in
the pre-Realignment group (37.4 percent and 36.8 percent, respectively), while the combined
percentages of all remaining female offender groups (Hispanic/Latina, Black/African American,
Native American/Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and Other) are 0.6
percent higher in the post-Realignment than in the pre-Realignment cohort.
The post-Realignment proportions for commitment offense categories remain similar to that of
the pre-Realignment cohort. The most common commitment offense category is for property
crimes, with a 1.7 percent decrease from the pre-Realignment to the post-Realignment groups
(47.9 percent and 46.2 percent, respectively). The next most frequent commitment offense
category is for drug crimes. In this category, there were 1.7 percent fewer female offenders in
the post-Realignment than the pre-Realignment group (30.0 percent and 28.3 percent,
respectively), followed by crimes against persons with a 3.3 percent increase from the pre- to
post-Realignment cohorts (15.4 percent and 18.7 percent, respectively). These cohort changes
are expected given that Realignment resulted in the movement of offenders with less serious
crimes to community-level custody.
Over 80 percent of both cohorts do not have a serious or violent commitment offense.
Nevertheless, the percent of female offenders having had a serious or violent commitment
offense increased 5.1 percent from the pre- to post-Realignment cohorts (14.5 percent and 19.6
percent, respectively). Less than two percent of either cohort are sex registrants. Over 90
percent of both cohorts had served a determinate sentence, with fewer than 10 percent
indeterminately sentenced as “second-strikers” or “lifers.” However, the post-Realignment
cohort of female offenders indeterminately sentenced as “second-strikers” was 2.4 percent
higher than found in the pre-Realignment cohort (5.6 percent and 8.0 percent, respectively), and
0.3 percent more female offenders were serving life in the post-Realignment group (0.3 percent
and 0.6 percent, respectively).
Over half in each cohort did not have a mental health designation. Approximately 40 percent
had participated in the Correctional Clinical Case Management System (CCCMS),8 with 2.7
percent more designated as CCCMS in the post-Realignment cohort than in the
pre-Realignment cohort (37.6 percent and 40.3 percent, respectively). In addition, approximately
4 percent in both cohorts had participated in the Enhanced Outpatient Program.9 Approximately
a third of female offenders have high CSRA scores (mostly for property), followed by medium
and then low CSRA scores.10,11

8

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.
9
A mental health services designation applied to a severely mentally ill inmate receiving treatment at a
level similar to day treatment services.
10
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. For more information about the
CSRA, visit the University of California, Irvine, Center for Evidence-Based Corrections web site at
http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/sites/ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/files/CSRA%20Working%20Pap
er_0.pdf.
11
CSRA scores are calculated only for those offenders who have automated criminal history data
available from the Department of Justice.

4

Realignment Report
May 2014

Table 1 also depicts the top 12 counties, to which the largest numbers of female offenders were
released, with the remaining counties grouped into the “All Others” category. Both groups have
an almost identical distribution of offenders across these top 12 counties. Los Angeles received
the largest proportion of female offenders, followed by San Bernardino for both cohorts.
Table 1. Pre- and Post-Realignment Release Cohort Characteristics
Pre-Realignment
Released Between
10/01/2010 and
09/30/2011
Characteristics

Post-Realignment
Released Between
10/01/2011 and
09/30/2012

N

%

N

%

Total

8,540

100.0

5,232

100.0

Release Type
First Release
Re-Release

6,200
2,340

72.6
27.4

4,451
781

85.1
14.9

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

19
774
1,571
1,624
1,234
1,273
1,093
631
214
107

0.2
9.1
18.4
19.0
14.4
14.9
12.8
7.4
2.5
1.3

14
463
872
1,004
755
777
701
426
155
65

0.3
8.8
16.7
19.2
14.4
14.9
13.4
8.1
3.0
1.2

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

3,194
2,772
2,212
94
110
36
122

37.4
32.5
25.9
1.1
1.3
0.4
1.4

1,926
1,712
1,363
56
77
23
75

36.8
32.7
26.1
1.1
1.5
0.4
1.4

Commitment Offense Category
Crimes Against Persons
Property Crimes
Drug Crimes
Other Crimes

1,316
4,093
2,565
566

15.4
47.9
30.0
6.6

976
2,415
1,483
358

18.7
46.2
28.3
6.8

Serious and/or Violent
Yes
No

1,240
7,300

14.5
85.5

1,026
4,206

19.6
80.4 Continued

5

Realignment Report
May 2014

Table 1. Pre- and Post-Realignment Release Cohort Characteristics (Continued)
Sex Registration Flag
Yes
No

109
8,431

1.3
98.7

60
5,172

1.1
98.9

Sentence Type
Second Striker
Determinate Sentence Law
Life

480
8,031
29

5.6
94.0
0.3

420
4,780
32

8.0
91.4
0.6

Mental Health Status
Enhanced Outpatient Program
Correctional Clinical Case
Management System
No Mental Health Code

343

4.0

216

4.1

3,212
4,985

37.6
58.4

2,106
2,910

40.3
55.6

CSRA Risk Score
Low
Medium
High
Violent
Property
Drug
NA

2,370
2,869
3,298
95
2,366
837
3

27.8
33.6
38.6
1.1
27.7
9.8
0.0

1,613
1,771
1,846
60
1,363
423
2

30.8
33.8
35.3
1.1
26.1
8.1
0.0

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

157
300
378
2,469
618
546
382
851
592
190
284
144
1,629

1.8
3.5
4.4
28.9
7.2
6.4
4.5
10.0
6.9
2.2
3.3
1.7
19.1

70
187
240
1,651
290
341
228
530
380
111
142
84
978

1.3
3.6
4.6
31.6
5.5
6.5
4.4
10.1
7.3
2.1
2.7
1.6
18.7

6

Realignment Report
May 2014

3 Outcomes
Female offenders in the pre- and post-Realignment one-year release cohorts were tracked
following their first release from prison to determine if they incurred any new arrests or
convictions, or were returned to prison, within 365 days of their release.
The majority of releases were first releases, determinately sentenced, not currently committed
for a serious or violent crime, not required to register as a sex offender, and had no correctional
mental health designation. California Static Risk Assessment (CSRA) scores for the
pre-Realignment cohort revealed that just under 40 percent were at high risk for recidivism (38.6
percent), while approximately a third were at medium risk (33.6 percent), and less than a third
were at low risk (27.8 percent). A slightly lower percentage of post-Realignment female
offenders were at high risk for recidivism (35.3 percent), while slightly more were at medium
(33.8 percent) and low (30.8 risk).

3.1 Arrests
New arrests include any formal contact with the criminal justice system that has resulted in an
arrest, including arrests that did not result in the filing of formal charges or a conviction.
Notably, there was a change in the processing of parole violations which affects the difference
between the pre- and post-Realignment arrest rates.12 Prior to Realignment, parole violators
could be returned directly to prison without incurring an arrest or spending any time in a county
facility. Post-Realignment, parole violators are usually arrested and booked into a county jail as
they are now rarely returned to prison. The exception to this is for third strikers, mentally
disordered offenders, offenders with a current violent or serious commitment offense, high-risk
sex offenders (as defined by CDCR), and those who were on parole prior to
October 1, 2011.

12

To ensure comparability between the release cohorts, the difference in processing parole violators
pre- and post-Realignment was accounted for by ensuring that an arrest was identified for all parole
violators who were returned to custody.

7

Realignment Report
May 2014

3.1.1 Pre- and Post-Realignment One-Year Arrest Rates
Figure 1. One-Year Arrest Rates, Comparison between Release Cohorts

Figure 1 and Table 2 show that, compared to the prior cohort, the average one-year arrest rates
(i.e., their first arrest within one year) for female offenders released during the first year of
Realignment is slightly higher than the comparison group released prior to Realignment (46.6
and 48.1 percent, respectively). Both cohorts showed marked variability in arrest rates across
the study period; however, there was an overall decline from the first (October) to the last month
(September) post-release (12.5 percent and 7.5 percent, respectively). Appendix A presents the
one-year arrest rates for each county.

8

Realignment Report
May 2014

Table 2. One-Year Arrest Rates, Comparison between Release Cohorts

Month
Released
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
One-Year Total

Pre-Realignment
Released
Arrested
N
N
%
853
442 51.8%
830
396 47.7%
887
476 53.7%
740
356 48.1%
686
332 48.4%
779
348 44.7%
670
321 47.9%
648
291 44.9%
636
273 42.9%
603
259 43.0%
633
256 40.4%
575
226 39.3%
8,540
3,976 46.6%

Post-Realignment
Released
Arrested
N
N
%
733
385 52.5%
584
299 51.2%
676
351 51.9%
563
295 52.4%
446
190 42.6%
447
200 44.7%
382
170 44.5%
325
156 48.0%
339
154 45.4%
297
127 42.8%
222
94 42.3%
218
98 45.0%
5,232
2,519 48.1%

9

Realignment Report
May 2014

3.1.2 Arrest Types13
Figure 2. Arrest Types, Comparison between Release Cohorts

Figure 2 and Table 3 present the types of arrests for which offenders in each cohort were
charged. For the pre-Realignment cohort, felonies were the most common type of offense for
which offenders were re-arrested (42.8 percent), followed by supervision violations (30.3
percent), and misdemeanor offenses (26.9 percent).
For the post-Realignment cohort, felonies were the most common type of offense for which
offenders were re-arrested (43.0 percent), followed by supervision violations (34.8 percent),
then misdemeanor offenses (22.2 percent). From pre- to post-Realignment, arrests for felonies
remained stable while there was a decline in arrests for misdemeanor crimes (4.7 percent) with
a corresponding increase in supervision violations (4.5 percent). Most of the decreases in
misdemeanor arrests were due to declines in misdemeanor crimes for drug/alcohol (3.4
percent) with smaller declines in arrests for property or person-related crimes.

13

Figure 2 and Table 3 show only the type of arrest for those where the arrest code could be mapped to
an arrest category (i.e., felony, misdemeanor, or supervision violation). Less than 2 percent of cases
could not be mapped due to a missing or unidentifiable arrest code.

10

Realignment Report
May 2014

Table 3. Arrest Types, Comparison between Release Cohorts

Type of
Arrest
All Felonies
Felony Person
Felony Property
Felony Drug/Alcohol
Felony Other
Felony Unknown
All Misdemeanors
Misdemeanor Person
Misdemeanor Property
Misdemeanor Drug/Alcohol
Misdemeanor Other
Misdemeanor Unknown
All Supervision Violations
Total

Pre-Realignment
N
1,697
221
716
688
60
12
1,067
200
217
519
44
87
1,203
3,967

%
42.8%
5.6%
18.0%
17.3%
1.5%
0.3%
26.9%
5.0%
5.5%
13.1%
1.1%
2.2%
30.3%
100.0%

Post-Realignment
N
1,062
164
424
385
50
39
549
120
114
239
42
34
859
2,470

%
43.0%
6.6%
17.2%
15.6%
2.0%
1.6%
22.2%
4.9%
4.6%
9.7%
1.7%
1.4%
34.8%
100.0%

11

Realignment Report
May 2014

3.1.3 Number of Arrests per Person Released
Figure 3. Number of Arrests per Person Released, Comparison between Release Cohorts

The number of arrests per female offender released is depicted in Figure 3 and Table 4. The
12-month per person arrest rate presented by the two cohorts differs somewhat dramatically.
First, the post-Realignment cohort had a slightly higher arrest rate per person throughout the
study period, with the exception of one month (February). Next, the pre-Realignment cohort
showed a general decline with one month of increased rates (December 2010). The 12-month
per person arrest rate for post-Realignment female offenders also showed an overall decline,
but with greater variability. The average one-year arrest rate per person increased 0.21 per
person from pre- to post-Realignment (0.93 and 1.14, respectively, Table 4).

12

Realignment Report
May 2014

Table 4. Number of Arrests per Person Released, Comparison between Release Cohorts

Pre-Realignment
Number
Total
Arrest Rate
Released
Arrests
Per Person
853
871
1.02
830
785
0.95
887
999
1.13
740
712
0.96
686
681
0.99
779
697
0.89
670
614
0.92
648
561
0.87
636
549
0.86
603
521
0.86
633
520
0.82
575
431
0.75
8,540
7,941
0.93

Month
Released
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
One-Year Total

Post-Realignment
Number
Total
Arrest Rate
Released
Arrests
Per Person
733
955
1.30
584
793
1.36
676
865
1.28
563
697
1.24
446
420
0.94
447
461
1.03
382
367
0.96
325
357
1.10
339
321
0.95
297
265
0.89
222
231
1.04
218
220
1.01
5,232
5,952
1.14

3.1.4 Number of Times Offenders Were Arrested
The number of times female offenders in the pre- and post-Realignment one-year cohorts were
arrested is depicted in Table 5. Over half of the female offenders released pre- and
post-Realignment had no arrests within one year of release (53.4 percent and 51.9 percent,
respectively). Of those who were arrested, over a third from both cohorts were arrested from
one to two times. In addition, female offenders in the post-Realignment cohort were slightly
more likely than the pre-Realignment cohort to have been arrested three or more times (16.1
percent and 11.8 percent, respectively).
Table 5. Count of Arrest Cycles, Comparison between Release Cohorts
Pre-Realignment
Count of Arrest Cycles
Total

0
1
2
3
4
5
6+

N

8,540
4,564
1,963
1,003
511
266
123
110

%

100.0%
53.4%
23.0%
11.7%
6.0%
3.1%
1.4%
1.3%

Post-Realignment
N

5,232
2,713
1,003
672
369
230
112
133

%

100.0%
51.9%
19.2%
12.8%
7.1%
4.4%
2.1%
2.5%

13

Realignment Report
May 2014

3.2 Convictions
New convictions include only those found guilty of the charge(s) for which they were arrested.
Only the first conviction within the year following release is counted. Convictions that occurred
after one year are not counted even if the arrest was within the first year.

3.2.1 Pre- and Post-Realignment One-Year Conviction Rates
Figure 4. One-Year Conviction Rates, Comparison between Release Cohorts

Figure 4 and Table 6 show trends in the one-year conviction rates. The pre-Realignment cohort
had similar or slightly higher conviction rates than the post-Realignment cohort from October
2010 to June 2011. In addition, the pre-Realignment cohort showed minimal variability across
the study period, with somewhat lower conviction rates in the latter third of the period (June
2011 to September 2011) compared with the first third (October 2010 to January 2011). The
post-Realignment cohort showed more variability over the 12 months and had lower conviction
rates than the pre-Realignment cohort for all months except October and November 2011, and
June 2012.
There is a 1.2 percent decrease in the average conviction rates from the pre- to
post-Realignment cohorts (17.9 percent and 16.7 percent, respectively). Appendix B presents
the one-year conviction rates for each county.

14

Realignment Report
May 2014

Table 6. One-Year Conviction Rates, Comparison between Release Cohorts

Month
Released
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
One-Year Total

Pre-Realignment
Released
Convicted
N
N
%
853
165 19.3%
830
151 18.2%
887
181 20.4%
740
141 19.1%
686
119 17.3%
779
129 16.6%
670
119 17.8%
648
118 18.2%
636
104 16.4%
603
105 17.4%
633
105 16.6%
575
93 16.2%
8,540

1,530

17.9%

Post-Realignment
Released
Convicted
N
N
%
733
150 20.5%
584
116 19.9%
676
117 17.3%
563
106 18.8%
446
59 13.2%
447
71 15.9%
382
53 13.9%
325
50 15.4%
339
56 16.5%
297
45 15.2%
222
24 10.8%
218
25 11.5%
5,232

3.2.2 Conviction Types
Figure 5. Conviction Types, Comparison between Release Cohorts

872

16.7%

15

Realignment Report
May 2014

Figure 5 and Table 7 reveal an expected Realignment-based shift in the type of convictions
offenders are receiving, with a higher proportion of felony convictions occurring
post-Realignment than pre-Realignment (59.9 percent and 54.5 percent, respectively). This was
primarily due to a 3.8 percent increase in “Felony Property” convictions and an approximate 1.1
percent increase in “Felony Drug/Alcohol” convictions. The pattern of felony conviction types is
consistent across the pre- and post-Realignment cohorts with “Felony Drug/Alcohol” as the most
common conviction type, followed by “Felony Property” convictions, and then “Felony Person”
convictions across all periods studied.
Table 7. Conviction Types, Comparison between Release Cohorts

Type of
Conviction
All Felonies
Felony Person
Felony Property
Felony Drug/Alcohol
Felony Other
Felony Unknown
All Misdemeanors
Misdemeanor Person
Misdemeanor Property
Misdemeanor Drug/Alcohol
Misdemeanor Other
Misdemeanor Unknown
Total

Pre-Realignment

Post-Realignment

N
834
47
344
409
24
10

%
54.5%
3.1%
22.5%
26.7%
1.6%
0.7%

N
522
35
229
242
8
8

%
59.9%
4.0%
26.3%
27.8%
0.9%
0.9%

696
144
216
275
14
47
1,530

45.5%
9.4%
14.1%
18.0%
0.9%
3.1%
100.0%

350
84
108
120
9
29
872

40.1%
9.6%
12.4%
13.8%
1.0%
3.3%
100.0%

3.2.3 Number of Times Offenders Were Convicted
Examination of the number of times offenders released in the first year of Realignment received
new convictions (Table 8) shows that most female offenders in the pre- and post-Realignment
cohorts were not convicted of new crimes within one year of release (82.1 and 83.3 percent,
respectively). The percent of post-Realignment female offenders with one new conviction was
1.4 percent lower than for pre-Realignment female offenders (15.2 percent and 13.8 percent,
respectively), while the percent of those with 2 or more new convictions was similar across both
cohorts (2.7 percent and 2.8 percent, respectively).

16

Realignment Report
May 2014

Table 8. New Convictions, Comparison between Release Cohorts
Pre-Realignment
Count of Conviction Cycles
Total

0
1
2
3+

N

8,540
7,010
1,300
194
36

%

100.0%
82.1%
15.2%
2.3%
0.4%

Post-Realignment
N

5,232
4,360
724
125
23

%

100.0%
83.3%
13.8%
2.4%
0.4%

3.3 Returns to Prison
The rate at which offenders return to State prison is the final area examined. Returns to prison
is the measure that is most impacted by Realignment as parole violators, who have traditionally
comprised almost half of all returns to prison within a year, may now only return after being
convicted of a new crime. Only certain offenders are eligible to be revoked to State prison.14
Furthermore, offenders who are convicted of certain non-non-non offenses who would
previously have been sent to State prison will now serve the entirety of their sentence in local
jails, further reducing the number of offenders entering State prison. Only the first return to
prison following release is counted.

3.3.1 Pre- and Post-Realignment One-Year Return to Prison Rates
Figure 6. One-Year Return to Prison Rates, Comparison between Release Cohorts

14

Offenses eligible for revocation back to State prison are defined in PC § 3000(b) (4), 3000.08(h), and
3000.1.

17

Realignment Report
May 2014

Figure 6 and Table 9 show the dramatic impact of Realignment since parole violators are no
longer returned to State prison and many who commit certain non-non-non offenses remain
under County jurisdiction. From October 2011 through September 2012, an average of 2.6
percent of female offenders returned to State prison within one year of release
post-Realignment. This is drastically lower than the pre-Realignment return to prison rates,
which averaged 20.3 percent.

Table 9. One-Year Return to Prison Rates, Comparison between Release Cohorts

Month
Released
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
One-Year Total

Pre-Realignment
Released
Returned
N
N
%
853
268 31.4%
830
260 31.3%
887
275 31.0%
740
176 23.8%
686
180 26.2%
779
150 19.3%
670
123 18.4%
648
92 14.2%
636
85 13.4%
603
63 10.4%
633
37
5.8%
575
23
4.0%
8,540
1,732 20.3%

Post-Realignment
Released
Returned
N
N
%
733
22
3.0%
584
8
1.4%
676
20
3.0%
563
14
2.5%
446
11
2.5%
447
9
2.0%
382
9
2.4%
325
9
2.8%
339
10
2.9%
297
9
3.0%
222
8
3.6%
218
9
4.1%
5,232
138
2.6%

18

Realignment Report
May 2014

3.3.2 Pre- and Post-Realignment Types of Returns to Prison
Figure 7. Return Types, Comparison between Release Cohorts

As expected, Figure 7 and Table 10 illustrate that the primary reason offenders are now
returned to prison is due to a new conviction. In 2010, 25.2 percent of the pre-Realignment
cohort returned to prison for a new term and the remaining 74.8 percent returned for a parole
violation. Post-Realignment, all female offenders who returned did so due to a new conviction.
In fact, the number of parole violators decreased from 1,296 (October 2010 to September 2011)
to zero offenders (October 2011 to September 2012). The lack of parole violators being returned
to prison is an indicator that Realignment is working as intended, as well as support for the
theory that a greater percentage of female than male offenders commit nonviolent, property and
substance-related crimes. The vast majority of all parole violators are now sent to county jails
instead of prison.
Table 10. Return Types, Comparison between Release Cohorts

Pre-Realignment
Type of Return
New Conviction
Parole Violation
Total

N
436
1,296
1,732

%
25.2%
74.8%
100.0%

Post-Realignment
N
138
0
138

%
100.0%
0.0%
100.0%

19

Realignment Report
May 2014

4 Data Quality
Data quality is of paramount importance with 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. All calculations in this report are based on the data available and
are limited by the quality of the data sources.

5 Study Limitations
This report examines only the first year of Realignment, which makes it difficult to generalize
about possible trends. This time period is also likely not representative of the impact of
Realignment as a whole because it reflects only the beginning of implementation, a period
undoubtedly marked by some degree of adjustment as the State and local government
embarked on significant changes to its criminal justice system. Additionally, this study period is
likely not representative of Realignment’s eventual impact, as there are still significant
milestones that need to be accomplished on the part of the counties in terms of providing
rehabilitative programming to parolees. Many counties are at the beginning stages of program
design, with program implementation to follow.
The arrest, conviction, and return to prison data presented here are not directly comparable to
those presented in the annual CDCR Outcome Evaluation Reports, especially the 2013
Outcome Evaluation Report, which tracks the entire Fiscal Year 2008 – 2009 release cohort,
regardless of offender sex. The FY 2008 – 2009 cohort has eight months of overlap following
the implementation of Realignment, meaning that these female offenders in the final eight
months of the three-year recidivism follow-up time frame could not be returned to prison for a
parole violation except for a very limited set of conditions.15 This may influence the recidivism
rates for those female offenders. Additionally, all of the female offenders in the Realignment
report are under some form of supervision following release (i.e., parole or PRCS) so these
offenders may have higher recidivism rates as well due to increased supervision. Whereas, the
2013 Outcome Evaluation FY 2008 – 2009 cohort, on the other hand, had approximately 1,000
discharges which are not subject to any form of supervision so that may have lowered
recidivism rates for this group.
Finally, this report only covers a part of the impact of realignment, because it focuses on those
female offenders released from prison and returning to prison, but does not evaluate the impact
of female offenders who are released from prison and are subsequently returned to local jails.

6 Conclusion
Overall, this report shows that there is very little difference between female offenders and their
outcomes following release after completing their State prison term pre- and post-Realignment.
While the number of female offenders being processed did decline, the rates of the different
outcomes studied are similar as are the demographic characteristics for each cohort. The only
exception to this is for returns to prison, which is to be expected since Realignment
fundamentally changed the types of offenses and offenders that can be returned to prison.
The one-year arrest rates in the first year of Realignment were slightly higher for the
post-Realignment cohort than for the pre-Realignment cohort, but the one-year conviction rates
15

Offenses eligible for revocation back to State prison are defined in PC § 3000(b) (4), 3000.08(h), and
3000.1.

20

Realignment Report
May 2014

were slightly lower. For both cohorts, there was a gradual decrease in the arrest rates in the
months that followed release. In addition, felonies (property and drug/alcohol) were the most
common type of offense for which offenders were re-arrested in both cohorts, followed by
supervision violations, and then misdemeanor offenses. And, of the female offenders who were
arrested, pre-Realignment offenders were much more likely to be arrested once, while
post-Realignment offenders were more likely to have been arrested two or more times.
Post-Realignment conviction rates also gradually declined after November 2011 and remained
lower than the pre-Realignment rates through the end of the study period with the exception of
one month (June). There was a shift in the type of convictions offenders are receiving, with a
higher proportion of felony convictions occurring post-Realignment, primarily due to increases in
“Felony Property” convictions. Most offenders were not re-convicted within one year, and
post-Realignment female offenders were slightly less likely than were pre-Realignment
offenders to be convicted once. The low percentage of female offenders likely to have two or
more new convictions was similar across both cohorts.
Finally, very few offenders who are released from State prison were returned to State prison
within the first year of being released. From October 2011 through September 2012, overall, an
average of 2.6 percent of female offenders returned to State prison within one year of release
post-Realignment. This is 17.6 percentage points lower than the pre-Realignment return to
prison rates (20.3 percent). In 2010, 25.2 percent of the pre-Realignment cohort returned to
prison for a new term and the remaining 74.8 percent returned for a parole violation.
Post-Realignment, all female offenders who returned did so due to a new conviction.

21

Realignment Report
May 2014

References
Bloom, B., Owen, B., & Covington, S. (2002). Gender-responsive strategies: Research, practice
and guiding principles for women offenders. Washington D.C.: National Institute of
Corrections. Retrieved from http://static.nicic.gov/Library/018017.pdf
California Association of Drug Court Professionals. (2012). The future of California corrections,
p. 26. Retrieved from http://www.cadcp.org/the-future-of-cdc/
Covington, S. S., & Bloom, B. E. (2006). Gender-responsive treatment and services in
correctional settings. In E. Leeder’s (Ed.). Women and Therapy, 29(3/4), pp. 9-33.
Retrieved from
http://casat.unr.edu/docs/CovingtonandBloomGenderresponsivetreatmentandservicesinc
orrectionalsettings.pdf
Glaze, L. E., & Maruschak, L. M. (2008, August). Parents in prison and their minor children.
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Special Report, (NCJ 222984). Retrieved from
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/pptmc.pdf
Hardyman, P. L., & Van Voorhis, P. (2004). Developing gender-specific classification systems
for women offenders. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of
Corrections. Retrieved from http://static.nicic.gov/Library/018931.pdf
Saar, M. S., Bisnott, B., and Mathon-Mathieu, F. (2010). Mothers behind bars: A state-by-state
report card and analysis of federal policies on conditions of confinement for pregnant
and parenting women and the effect on their children. National Women’s Law Center:
Expanding the Possibilities & The Rebecca Project for Human Rights. Retrieved from
http://www.nwlc.org/resource/mothers-behind-bars-state-state-report-card-and-analysisfederal-policies-conditions-confin

22

Realignment Report
May 2014

Wright, E. M., Van Voorhis, P., Salisbury, E. J., & Bauman, A. (2012). Gender-responsive
lessons learned and policy implications for women in prison: A review. Criminal Justice
and Behavior, 39, 1612-1631. Retrieved from http://cjb.sagepub.com/content/39/12/1612

23

Realignment Report

24

May 2014

Appendix A
One-Year Arrest Rates by County of Release
Pre-Realignment (Released between 10/01/2010 and 9/30/2011) and
Post-Realignment (Released between 10/01/2011 and 9/30/2012)
PRE-REALIGNMENT

POST-REALIGNMENT

COUNTY
Alameda
Alpine
Amador
Butte
Calaveras
Colusa
Contra Costa
Del Norte
El Dorado
Fresno
Glenn
Humboldt
Imperial
Inyo
Kern
Kings
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

RELEASED

ARRESTED

RATE

RELEASED

ARRESTED

RATE

157
0
12
69
3
2
69
3
28
300
6
34
22
2
378
88
17
4
2,469
30
10
0
17
58
0
0
84
14
8
618
47
2
546
382
13
851
592
86
190

80
0
4
33
0
2
36
1
12
148
3
18
10
1
187
32
10
1
999
15
4
0
10
21
0
0
36
6
5
337
24
0
274
183
5
385
283
52
106

51.0%
N/A
N/A
47.8%
N/A
N/A
52.2%
N/A
N/A
49.3%
N/A
52.9%
N/A
N/A
49.5%
36.4%
N/A
N/A
40.5%
50.0%
N/A
N/A
N/A
36.2%
N/A
N/A
42.9%
N/A
N/A
54.5%
51.1%
N/A
50.2%
47.9%
N/A
45.2%
47.8%
60.5%
55.8%

70
0
8
60
4
1
44
2
13
187
1
24
9
1
240
46
2
4
1,651
18
5
0
10
19
0
1
60
6
6
290
26
4
341
228
8
530
380
47
111

36
0
1
30
0
0
23
0
3
93
0
14
4
1
119
24
1
2
803
11
0
0
4
7
0
0
30
3
1
159
11
1
146
111
2
249
193
29
47

51.4%
N/A
N/A
50.0%
N/A
N/A
52.3%
N/A
N/A
49.7%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
49.6%
52.2%
N/A
N/A
48.6%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
50.0%
N/A
N/A
54.8%
N/A
N/A
42.8%
48.7%
N/A
47.0%
50.8%
61.7%
42.3%

CHANGE FROM PREREALIGNMENT RATE TO
POST-REALIGNMENT
RATE
0.5%
N/A
N/A
2.2%
N/A
N/A
0.1%
N/A
N/A
0.4%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.1%
15.8%
N/A
N/A
8.2%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
7.1%
N/A
N/A
0.3%
N/A
N/A
-7.4%
0.8%
N/A
1.7%
3.0%
1.2%
-13.4%

Realignment Report
May 2014

Appendix A
One-Year Arrest Rates by County of Release
Pre-Realignment (Released between 10/01/2010 and 9/30/2011) and
Post-Realignment (Released between 10/01/2011 and 9/30/2012) 16
(Continued)
PRE-REALIGNMENT

POST-REALIGNMENT

COUNTY
San Luis Obispo
San Mateo
Santa Barbara
Santa Clara
Santa Cruz
Shasta
Sierra
Siskiyou
Solano
Sonoma
Stanislaus
Sutter
Tehama
Trinity
Tulare
Tuolumne
Ventura
Yolo
Yuba

RELEASED

ARRESTED

RATE

RELEASED

ARRESTED

RATE

42
68
88
284
31
82
0
6
110
42
144
41
33
3
123
2
129
61
40

17
40
52
123
18
29
0
3
59
24
71
20
11
0
63
1
72
32
18

40.5%
58.8%
59.1%
43.3%
58.1%
35.4%
N/A
N/A
53.6%
57.1%
49.3%
48.8%
33.3%
N/A
51.2%
N/A
55.8%
52.5%
45.0%

24
38
63
142
17
65
0
3
45
34
84
26
21
2
80
6
60
35
30

13
19
34
60
10
18
0
1
24
14
49
10
5
0
43
3
32
14
12

N/A
50.0%
54.0%
42.3%
N/A
27.7%
N/A
N/A
53.3%
41.2%
58.3%
N/A
N/A
N/A
53.8%
N/A
53.3%
40.0%
40.0%

CHANGE FROM PREREALIGNMENT RATE TO
POST-REALIGNMENT
RATE
N/A
-8.8%
-5.1%
-1.1%
N/A
-7.7%
N/A
N/A
-0.3%
-16.0%
9.0%
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.5%
N/A
-2.5%
-12.5%
-5.0%

Continued

16

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

25

Realignment Report
May 2014

Appendix B
One-Year Conviction Rates by County of Release
Pre-Realignment (Released between 10/01/2010 and 9/30/2011) and
Post-Realignment (Released between 10/01/2011 and 9/30/2012)
PRE-REALIGNMENT

POST-REALIGNMENT

COUNTY
RELEASED CONVICTED
Alameda
Alpine
Amador
Butte
Calaveras
Colusa
Contra Costa
Del Norte
El Dorado
Fresno
Glenn
Humboldt
Imperial
Inyo
Kern
Kings
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

157
0
12
69
3
2
69
3
28
300
6
34
22
2
378
88
17
4
2,469
30
10
0
17
58
0
0
84
14
8
618
47
2
546
382
13
851
592
86
190

30
0
1
12
0
1
10
1
3
30
2
12
5
1
90
7
4
1
433
5
2
0
3
1
0
0
16
1
2
184
9
0
75
75
1
131
77
11
31

RATE
19.1%
N/A
N/A
17.4%
N/A
N/A
14.5%
N/A
N/A
10.0%
N/A
35.3%
N/A
N/A
23.8%
8.0%
N/A
N/A
17.5%
16.7%
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.7%
N/A
N/A
19.0%
N/A
N/A
29.8%
19.1%
N/A
13.7%
19.6%
N/A
15.4%
13.0%
12.8%
16.3%

RELEASED CONVICTED
70
0
8
60
4
1
44
2
13
187
1
24
9
1
240
46
2
4
1,651
18
5
0
10
19
0
1
60
6
6
290
26
4
341
228
8
530
380
47
111

11
0
0
10
0
0
4
0
1
24
0
6
2
0
62
9
0
0
296
6
0
0
2
0
0
0
8
1
1
78
2
0
48
45
0
63
25
7
19

RATE
15.7%
N/A
N/A
16.7%
N/A
N/A
9.1%
N/A
N/A
12.8%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
25.8%
19.6%
N/A
N/A
17.9%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
13.3%
N/A
N/A
26.9%
N/A
N/A
14.1%
19.7%
N/A
11.9%
6.6%
14.9%
17.1%

CHANGE FROM PREREALIGNMENT RATE TO
POST-REALIGNMENT
RATE
-3.4%
N/A
N/A
-0.7%
N/A
N/A
-5.4%
N/A
N/A
2.8%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.0%
11.6%
N/A
N/A
0.4%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
-5.7%
N/A
N/A
-2.9%
N/A
N/A
0.3%
0.1%
N/A
-3.5%
-6.4%
2.1%
0.8%

26

Realignment Report
May 2014

Appendix B
One-Year Conviction Rates by County of Release
Pre-Realignment (Released between 10/01/2010 and 9/30/2011) and
Post-Realignment (Released between 10/01/2011 and 9/30/2012) 17
(Continued)
PRE-REALIGNMENT

POST-REALIGNMENT

COUNTY
RELEASED CONVICTED
San Luis Obispo
San Mateo
Santa Barbara
Santa Clara
Santa Cruz
Shasta
Sierra
Siskiyou
Solano
Sonoma
Stanislaus
Sutter
Tehama
Trinity
Tulare
Tuolumne
Ventura
Yolo
Yuba

42
68
88
284
31
82
0
6
110
42
144
41
33
3
123
2
129
61
40

6
12
19
59
7
12
0
1
19
13
23
10
3
0
26
0
35
9
9

RATE
14.3%
17.6%
21.6%
20.8%
22.6%
14.6%
N/A
N/A
17.3%
31.0%
16.0%
24.4%
9.1%
N/A
21.1%
N/A
27.1%
14.8%
22.5%

RELEASED CONVICTED
24
38
63
142
17
65
0
3
45
34
84
26
21
2
80
6
60
35
30

2
8
18
24
3
4
0
0
11
9
19
2
2
0
19
1
11
3
6

RATE
N/A
21.1%
28.6%
16.9%
N/A
6.2%
N/A
N/A
24.4%
26.5%
22.6%
N/A
N/A
N/A
23.8%
N/A
18.3%
8.6%
20.0%

CHANGE FROM PREREALIGNMENT RATE TO
POST-REALIGNMENT
RATE
N/A
3.4%
7.0%
-3.9%
N/A
-8.5%
N/A
N/A
7.2%
-4.5%
6.6%
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.6%
N/A
-8.8%
-6.2%
-2.5%

Continued

17

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

27

Realignment Report
May 2014

Appendix C
One-Year Return to Prison Rates by County of Release
Pre-Realignment (Released between 10/01/2010 and 9/30/2011) and
Post-Realignment (Released between 10/01/2011 and 9/30/2012)
PRE-REALIGNMENT

POST-REALIGNMENT

COUNTY
RELEASED RETURNED
Alameda
Alpine
Amador
Butte
Calaveras
Colusa
Contra Costa
Del Norte
El Dorado
Fresno
Glenn
Humboldt
Imperial
Inyo
Kern
Kings
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

157
0
12
69
3
2
69
3
28
300
6
34
22
2
378
88
17
4
2,469
30
10
0
17
58
0
0
84
14
8
618
47
2
546
382
13
851
592
86
190

27
0
2
15
0
1
11
0
3
92
0
5
4
1
90
17
2
0
324
10
3
0
5
10
0
0
10
1
4
140
15
0
149
115
2
187
142
26
56

RATE
17.2%
N/A
N/A
21.7%
N/A
N/A
15.9%
N/A
N/A
30.7%
N/A
14.7%
N/A
N/A
23.8%
19.3%
N/A
N/A
13.1%
33.3%
N/A
N/A
N/A
17.2%
N/A
N/A
11.9%
N/A
N/A
22.7%
31.9%
N/A
27.3%
30.1%
N/A
22.0%
24.0%
30.2%
29.5%

RELEASED RETURNED
70
0
8
60
4
1
44
2
13
187
1
24
9
1
240
46
2
4
1,651
18
5
0
10
19
0
1
60
6
6
290
26
4
341
228
8
530
380
47
111

2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
2
0
0
60
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
9
1
0
15
5
0
13
9
0
4

RATE
2.9%
N/A
N/A
0.0%
N/A
N/A
4.5%
N/A
N/A
0.0%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.8%
4.3%
N/A
N/A
3.6%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3.3%
N/A
N/A
3.1%
N/A
N/A
4.4%
2.2%
N/A
2.5%
2.4%
0.0%
3.6%

CHANGE FROM PREREALIGNMENT RATE TO
POST-REALIGNMENT
RATE
-14.3%
N/A
N/A
-21.7%
N/A
N/A
-11.4%
N/A
N/A
-30.7%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
-23.0%
-15.0%
N/A
N/A
-9.5%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
-8.6%
N/A
N/A
-19.6%
N/A
N/A
-22.9%
-27.9%
N/A
-19.5%
-21.6%
-30.2%
-25.9%

Continued

28

Realignment Report
May 2014

Appendix C
One-Year Return to Prison Rates by County of Release
Pre-Realignment (Released between 10/01/2010 and 9/30/2011) and
Post-Realignment (Released between 10/01/2011 and 9/30/2012) 18
(Continued)
PRE-REALIGNMENT

POST-REALIGNMENT

COUNTY
RELEASED RETURNED
San Luis Obispo
San Mateo
Santa Barbara
Santa Clara
Santa Cruz
Shasta
Sierra
Siskiyou
Solano
Sonoma
Stanislaus
Sutter
Tehama
Trinity
Tulare
Tuolumne
Ventura
Yolo
Yuba

18

42
68
88
284
31
82
0
6
110
42
144
41
33
3
123
2
129
61
40

11
20
18
47
6
11
0
1
21
8
38
7
5
0
29
0
22
11
8

RATE
26.2%
29.4%
20.5%
16.5%
19.4%
13.4%
N/A
N/A
19.1%
19.0%
26.4%
17.1%
15.2%
N/A
23.6%
N/A
17.1%
18.0%
20.0%

RELEASED RETURNED
24
38
63
142
17
65
0
3
45
34
84
26
21
2
80
6
60
35
30

0
2
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1

RATE
N/A
5.3%
1.6%
2.1%
N/A
0.0%
N/A
N/A
0.0%
2.9%
1.2%
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.5%
N/A
0.0%
0.0%
3.3%

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

CHANGE FROM PREREALIGNMENT RATE TO
POST-REALIGNMENT
RATE
N/A
-24.1%
-18.9%
-14.4%
N/A
-13.4%
N/A
N/A
-19.1%
-16.1%
-25.2%
N/A
N/A
N/A
-21.1%
N/A
-17.1%
-18.0%
-16.7%

29