United States of America v. State of California et al

Filing 167

[WITHDRAWN pursuant to 170 Notice] REPLY by United States of America to RESPONSE to 2 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T, # 21 Exhibit U, # 22 Exhibit V, # 23 Exhibit W, # 24 Exhibit X, # 25 Exhibit Y)(Reuveni, Erez) Modified on 6/8/2018 (Donati, J). Modified on 6/11/2018 (Donati, J).

EXHIBIT N

California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report
An Examination of Offenders Released in
Fiscal Year 2012 13

Office of Research
October 2017

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

You can obtain reports by contacting the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation at the following address:
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Division of Internal Oversight and Research
Office of Research
1515 S Street, Suite 221N
Sacramento, California 95811
Or
On the internet 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."
Scott Kernan, Secretary
Kenneth Pogue, Undersecretary
Bryan Beyer, Director
Julie Basco, Deputy Director
Chris Chambers, Associate Director
Loran Sheley, Chief

Produced by:
Kevin Grassel, Systems Software Specialist III
Kendra Jensen, Research Program Specialist II
Andreana Yribe, Research Analyst II
Christopher Nguyen, Assistant Information Systems Analyst

This report would not have been possible without the generous support of others. Specifically, we would like to thank Shelley Butler
from the Office of Research for providing data quality assurance.

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

Table of Contents
1

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

2

Evaluation Design.............................................................................................................................. 5
Definitions ............................................................................................................................... .......... 5
Methods ............................................................................................................................... ............. 5
Data Sources............................................................................................................................... ....... 6
Data Limitations ............................................................................................................................... . 6
Impacts of Proposition 47 and Reporting Limitations ...................................................................... 6

3

Description of the Fiscal Year 2012 13 Release Cohort .................................................................... 8
Offender Demographics .................................................................................................................... 9
Offender Characteristics ................................................................................................................. 11

4

Three Year Conviction Rate ............................................................................................................ 15
Three Year Conviction Rate for CDCR Offenders Released in Fiscal Year 2012 13 and the Impact of
Realignment ............................................................................................................................... ..... 15
Time to Conviction .......................................................................................................................... 18

5

Offender Outcomes and Type of Conviction................................................................................... 20
Three Year Outcomes for the Fiscal Year 2012 13 Release Cohort ................................................ 20
Type of Conviction for the Fiscal Year 2012 13 Offenders Convicted Following Release from
Prison............................................................................................................................... ................ 22

6

Conviction Rates by Offender Demographics and Characteristics.................................................. 24
Conviction Rates by Offender Demographics ................................................................................. 24
6.1.1 Gender............................................................................................................................... ...... 24
6.1.2 Age at Release ......................................................................................................................... 26
6.1.3 Race/Ethnicity ......................................................................................................................... 28
6.1.4 County of Release.................................................................................................................... 30
Conviction Rates by Offender Characteristics................................................................................. 32
6.2.1 Commitment Offense Category .............................................................................................. 32
6.2.2 Commitment Offense.............................................................................................................. 34
6.2.3 Sentence Type ......................................................................................................................... 37
6.2.4 Sex Registrants ........................................................................................................................ 39
6.2.5 Type of Conviction for Sex Registrants.................................................................................... 41
i

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

6.2.6 Serious and Violent Offenses .................................................................................................. 42
6.2.7 Mental Health Designation ..................................................................................................... 44
6.2.8 Risk of Conviction .................................................................................................................... 46
6.2.9 Length of Stay.......................................................................................................................... 48
6.2.10 Total Number of CDCR Stays ................................................................................................... 50
6.2.11 In Prison and Community Based Substance Use Disorder Treatment ................................... 52
6.2.12 Conviction Rates by Substance Use Disorder Treatment Participation for Offenders with an
Identified Treatment Need...................................................................................................... 54
Appendix A ............................................................................................................................... ................... 56
Conviction Rates by Fiscal Year and Offender Demographics and Characteristics................................. 56
Appendix B ............................................................................................................................... ................... 59
Conviction Rates by County of Release................................................................................................... 59
Appendix C ............................................................................................................................... ................... 62
Primary and Supplemental Recidivism Rates: Arrests, Convictions, and Returns to Prison................... 62
Appendix D............................................................................................................................... ................... 68
Type of Arrest............................................................................................................................... ........... 68
Appendix E ............................................................................................................................... ................... 70
Type of Return to Prison ......................................................................................................................... 70
Appendix F ............................................................................................................................... ................... 73
Definitions of Key Terms ......................................................................................................................... 73

ii

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

List of Tables and Figures
Tables
Table 1. Demographics of Offenders Released in Fiscal Year 2012 13....................................................... 10
Table 2. Characteristics of Offenders Released in Fiscal Year 2012 13 ...................................................... 13
Table 3. Conviction Rates for the Fiscal Year 2012 13 Release Cohort by Type of Release ....................... 17
Table 4. Three Year Quarterly and Cumulative Rate of Conviction for the 16,496 Offenders Convicted
During the Three Year Follow Up Period .................................................................................... 19
Table 5. Three Year Outcomes for the Fiscal Year 2011 12 and Fiscal Year 2012 13 Release Cohorts ..... 21
Table 6. Type of Conviction for the Fiscal Year 2011 12 and Fiscal Year 2012 13 Offenders Convicted
Following Release from Prison .................................................................................................... 23
Table 7. Conviction Rates by Gender .......................................................................................................... 25
Table 8. Conviction Rates by Age at Release .............................................................................................. 27
Table 9. Conviction Rates by Race/Ethnicity............................................................................................... 29
Table 10. Conviction Rates by County of Release....................................................................................... 31
Table 11. Conviction Rates by Commitment Offense Category.................................................................. 33
Table 12. Conviction Rates by Commitment Offense ................................................................................. 36
Table 13. Conviction Rates by Sentence Type ............................................................................................ 38
Table 14. Number and Type of Conviction for Offenders Released by the Board of Parole Hearings and
Other Releases............................................................................................................................. 38
Table 15. Conviction Rates by Sex Registration Status ............................................................................... 40
Table 16. Type of Conviction for Sex Registrants........................................................................................ 41
Table 17. Conviction Rates for Offenders with a Serious or Violent Offense............................................. 43
Table 18. Conviction Rates by Mental Health Designation......................................................................... 45
Table 19. Conviction Rates by Risk of Conviction ....................................................................................... 47
Table 20. Conviction Rates by Length of Stay ............................................................................................. 49
Table 21. Conviction Rates by Total Number of CDCR Stays ...................................................................... 51
Table 22. Conviction Rates by Substance Use Disorder Treatment Participation ...................................... 53
Table 23. Conviction Rates by Substance Use Disorder Treatment Participation and Substance Abuse
Treatment Need .......................................................................................................................... 55

i

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

Figures
Figure 1. Three Year Conviction, Return to Prison, and Arrest Rates for Offenders Released in Fiscal Year
2002 03 through Fiscal Year 2012 13............................................................................................ 2
Figure 2. Three Year Outcomes for Offenders Released from State Prison in Fiscal Year 2012 13 ............. 3
Figure 3. Number of Offenders in the Fiscal Year 2002 03 through Fiscal Year 2012 13 Release Cohorts.. 8
Figure 4. Conviction Rates for the Fiscal Year 2012 13 Release Cohort by Type of Release ...................... 15
Figure 5. Three Year Quarterly and Cumulative Rate of Conviction for the 16,496 Offenders Convicted
During the Three Year Follow Up Period .................................................................................... 18
Figure 6. Three Year Outcomes for the Fiscal Year 2012 13 Release Cohort............................................. 20
Figure 7. Type of Conviction for the Fiscal Year 2012 13 Offenders Convicted Following Release from
Prison............................................................................................................................... ............ 22
Figure 8. Conviction Rates by Gender......................................................................................................... 24
Figure 9. Three Year Conviction Rate by Age at Release............................................................................ 26
Figure 10. Three Year Conviction Rate by Race/Ethnicity .......................................................................... 28
Figure 11. Three Year Conviction Rate by County of Release .................................................................... 30
Figure 12. Conviction Rates by Commitment Offense Category ................................................................ 32
Figure 13. Three Year Conviction Rate by Commitment Offense............................................................... 34
Figure 14. Conviction Rates by Sentence Type ........................................................................................... 37
Figure 15. Conviction Rates by Sex Registration Status.............................................................................. 39
Figure 16. Type of Conviction for Sex Registrants ...................................................................................... 41
Figure 17. Conviction Rates for Offenders with a Serious or Violent Offense............................................ 42
Figure 18. Conviction Rates by Mental Health Designation ....................................................................... 44
Figure 19. Conviction Rates by Risk of Conviction ...................................................................................... 46
Figure 20. Three Year Conviction Rate by Length of Stay........................................................................... 48
Figure 21. Three Year Conviction Rate by Total Number of CDCR Stays.................................................... 50
Figure 22. Three Year Conviction Rate by Substance Use Disorder Treatment Participation.................... 52
Figure 23. Three Year Conviction Rate by Substance Use Disorder Treatment Participation and Substance
Abuse Treatment Need ............................................................................................................... 54

ii

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

Executive Summary
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) presents the 2017 Outcome
Evaluation Report, part of an annual series, which examines recidivism outcomes (arrests, convictions,
and returns to prison) for offenders released from CDCR adult institutions during a given fiscal year. The
most recent cohort of offenders was released during Fiscal Year 2012 13 and tracked for three years.
Historical information is also provided for the Fiscal Year 2002 03 through Fiscal Year 2011 12 release
cohorts.

Outcomes for Offenders Released During Fiscal Year 2012 13
Between July 1, 2012 and June 30, 2013 (Fiscal Year 2012 13), 35,790 offenders were released from a
CDCR adult institution and tracked for three years following the date of their release.1 The three year
conviction rate for the 35,790 offenders who comprised the Fiscal Year 2012 13 release cohort was 46.1
percent. Of the offenders released in Fiscal Year 2012 13, 53.9 percent (19,294 offenders) had no
convictions within three years of their release from prison, 28.2 percent (10,079 offenders) were
convicted of a felony offense, and 17.9 percent (6,417 offenders) were convicted of a misdemeanor
offense.
Figure A. Three Year Outcomes for Offenders Released from State Prison in Fiscal Year 2012 13

1

During Fiscal Year 2012 13, a total of 36,527 offenders were released from a CDCR adult institution. Of these offenders, 35,790 offenders had
a Department of Justice automated rap sheet. Arrest and conviction data only include the 35,790 offenders with an automated rap sheet, while
return to prison data includes all 36,527 offenders released from prison.

i

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

California’s Public Safety Realignment Act (Realignment), which was implemented in October 2011,
fundamentally changed the state’s post release supervision structure. Realignment established Post
Release Community Supervision (PRCS) and placed most non serious, non violent, and non sex
registrant offenders under county supervision; whereas serious or violent offenders, high risk sex
offenders, and offenders released after serving a life term were released to CDCR parole supervision.2 Of
the 35,790 offenders released in Fiscal Year 2012 13, 56.5 percent (20,208 offenders) were released to
Post Release Community Supervision (PRCS), 41.8 percent (14,951 offenders) were released to parole,
and 1.8 percent (631 offenders) were directly discharged.
Offenders committed to CDCR for property crimes and drug crimes, which tend to be less serious and
less violent and allow for release to PRCS, are characterized by a higher risk to reoffend and higher
recidivism rates than offenders committed for more serious and violent crimes, who continue to be
released to parole.3 Further, younger offenders who are more likely to commit non serious and non
violent property and drug crimes are characterized by some of the highest recidivism rates among all
offenders, which was an additional factor potentially influencing the conviction rate of PRCS offenders
upward.4 Offenders characterized by lower recidivism rates and a lower risk to reoffend (offenders
committing serious and violent crimes and serving longer terms) continued to be released to parole
thereby influencing the three year conviction rate of parolees downward. Post Realignment, the three
year conviction rate of parolees (38.8 percent) is less than the overall conviction rate (46.1 percent)
because many of the offenders at the highest risk to reoffend are released to PRCS, while offenders with
less risk to reoffend are released to parole.
Direct comparisons between offenders released to PRCS and parole should not be made, as the two
groups represent substantially different groups of offenders. Rather, the rate for PRCS offenders (52.2
percent) should be used as a baseline and compared to rates for PRCS offenders provided in future
Outcome Evaluation Reports and the three year conviction rate for parolees (38.8 percent) should be
compared to future rates for parolees. The overall conviction rate (46.1 percent) provides the most
comprehensive picture of reoffending among all offenders released from CDCR institutions into the
community.

Recidivism Trends
Commencing with the 2016 Outcome Evaluation Report and the Fiscal Year 2011 12 release cohort,
CDCR transitioned its primary measure of recidivism from the three year return to prison rate to the
three year conviction rate to better coincide with the state wide definition of recidivism and to provide
a more meaningful measure of reoffending behavior for CDCR offenders following the implementation
of Realignment.5 Figure B shows the primary measure of recidivism, the three year conviction rate, and

2

Prior to Realignment, all post prison release supervision was carried out by CDCR parole.
For more information regarding conviction rates by commitment offense category, serious and violent offenses, and risk scores, please see the
following sections: 6.2.1 Commitment Offense Category, 6.2.6 Serious and Violent Offenses, and 6.2.8 Risk of Conviction.
4
For more information regarding conviction rates by age at release, please see 6.1.2 Age at Release.
5
Section 3027 of California Penal Code required the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) to develop a state wide definition of
recidivism. For more information regarding BSCC’s definition, please see Section 2.1 Definitions of this report.
3

ii

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

property and drug offenders, who are more likely to recidivate than serious and violent offenders, now
comprise smaller portions of each release cohort, thereby influencing arrest, conviction, and return to
prison rates downward.

Pre and Post Realignment Comparisons
The Fiscal Year 2007 08 release cohort represented the last group of offenders released by CDCR in
which their release (July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008) and three year follow up (ending June 30, 2011)
periods occurred prior to the implementation of Realignment. In contrast, Realignment was operational
for varying amounts of time during the Fiscal Year 2008 09 through 2011 12 release cohorts’ release and
three year follow up periods. The current Fiscal Year 2012 13 release cohort marks the first group of
offenders released by CDCR in which their release (July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013) and three year
follow up (ending June 30, 2016) periods occurred after the implementation of Realignment, allowing
CDCR to more thoroughly examine Realignment’s impact on the three year return to prison rate.
The pre Realignment Fiscal Year 2007 08 release cohort’s three year return to prison rate was 63.7
percent, 41.5 percentage points higher than the post Realignment Fiscal Year 2012 13 release cohort’s
rate of 22.2 percent. Much of the decrease observed in the three year return to prison rate has been
attributed to a decrease in parole violations. Under Realignment, most parole revocations are served in
county jail rather than state prison.9 Among the offenders released in Fiscal Year 2007 08, nearly half
(44.0 percent or 51,503 offenders) were returned for parole violations, while eight offenders, all of
whom were released after serving a life term, were returned to prison for parole violations in the post
Realignment Fiscal Year 2012 13 release cohort. Appendix E provides the type of return to prison (e.g.
for parole violations, property crimes, crimes against persons), allowing for an analysis of Realignment’s
impact on parole violations and the types of crimes committed by CDCR offenders post release that
resulted in a return to CDCR.
While decreases in returns to prison for parole violations heavily influenced the three year return to
prison rate, the three year conviction rate has never included parole violations and was not impacted by
Realignment’s changes to the parole revocation process. Further, Realignment did not impact which
crimes were eligible for felony sentences, only where sentences were served. As fewer offenders were
eligible to serve sentences for new crimes or parole violations in prison, the three year return to prison
rate trended downward, while the three year conviction rate remained stable with small fluctuations.
Although Realignment has not extensively influenced the three year conviction rate, it had a
considerable effect on the size of each release cohort. Consistent with decreases to CDCR’s offender
population, largely due to Realignment, the size of each release cohort has decreased considerably with
the implementation of Realignment.10 As shown in Section 3 of this report, 116,015 offenders belonged
9
With the exception of offenders previously sentenced to a life term (lifers) and some sex offenders. Penal Code section 3000.8 remands
persons on parole pursuant to section 3000.0, subdivision (b), paragraph (4) to the custody of CDCR. For more information regarding specific
sex offenses, please see: Penal Code section 3000.0(b)(4).
10
See CDCR’s Population Projections publications for extensive analysis regarding Realignment and other court ordered population reduction
measures on CDCR’s offender population:
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports_Research/Offender_Information_Services_Branch/Population_Reports.html

v

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

to the pre Realignment Fiscal Year 2007 08 release cohort, while 35,790 offenders belonged to the post
Realignment Fiscal Year 2012 13 release cohort, a difference of 80,225 offenders. More offenders in the
pre Realignment release cohort were returned to prison for parole violations following their release
(51,503 offenders) than comprised the entire post Realignment release cohort (35,790 offenders).
CDCR will continue to monitor changes to the size of each cohort and expects the number of releases to
fluctuate (increase and decrease) with future cohorts as policies impacting the offender population are
modified and implemented, including Proposition 47, which was passed in November 2014 and reduced
penalties for certain non serious and non violent property and drug crimes by mandating a
misdemeanor sentence instead of a felony.11 While Proposition 47 was only in effect for part of the
Fiscal Year 2012 13 release cohort’s three year follow up period, the policy is expected to have an
impact on future release cohorts and in particular, the number of felony and misdemeanor convictions
for property crimes and drug/alcohol crimes.
In addition to analyzing Realignment’s impact on the three year conviction and return to prison rate,
this report examines the conviction rate by demographics (e.g. age, gender) and characteristics (e.g.
commitment offense category, sentence type) for the 35,790 offenders released in Fiscal Year 2012 13,
allowing CDCR to observe changes in the composition of each release cohort since the implementation
of Realignment. Among the offenders released in CDCR’s last pre Realignment cohort (Fiscal Year 2007
08), 32.7 percent were committed for property crimes, 31.6 for drug crimes, 23.4 percent for crimes
against persons, and 12.3 percent for other crimes. As shown in Figure C above, these numbers have
changed considerably since the implementation of Realignment with 39.3 percent of the Fiscal Year
2012 13 release cohort committed for crimes against persons, 25.3 percent for property crimes, 20.7 for
drug crimes, and 14.8 percent for other crimes. While the number of offenders committed for crimes
against persons, which tend to be more serious and violent, has grown since the implementation of
Realignment, these offenders also had lower three year conviction rates (38.7 percent) than offenders
committing property and drug crimes with three year conviction rates of 54.7 percent and 46.8 percent,
respectively, influencing the overall conviction rate of 46.1 percent downward.12
Three year conviction rates by offender demographics and characteristics for the Fiscal Year 2011 12
and 2012 13 release cohorts are presented in Appendix A to allow for comparisons and three year
conviction rates by county of release are presented in Appendix B. Consistent with previous reports,
one , two , and three year arrest, conviction and return to prison rates are provided in Appendix C of
this report and type of arrest and return data are provided in Appendix D and E. CDCR will continue to
update arrest, conviction, and return to prison data as they become available with the goal of spurring
discussion around the best possible ways to reduce recidivism among offenders released from CDCR
adult institutions.

11

The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act full text version:
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/130060%20(130060%20(Neighborhood%20and%20School%20Funding)).pdf
12
For more information regarding commitment offense categories, please see Section 6.2.1 Commitment Offense Category.

vi

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

Key Findings
Three Year Conviction Rate
Between July 1, 2012 and June 30, 2013 (Fiscal Year 2012 13), 35,790 offenders were released from
California’s state prisons. Of those offenders, 16,496 were convicted of a felony or misdemeanor
within three years of their release for a three year conviction rate of 46.1 percent.
Of the 35,790 offenders released in Fiscal Year 2012 13, 53.9 percent (19,294 offenders) had no
convictions within three years of their release, 28.2 percent (10,079 offenders) were convicted of a
felony offense, and 17.9 percent (6,417 offenders) were convicted of a misdemeanor offense.
The Fiscal Year 2012 13 release cohort’s three year conviction rate of 46.1 percent was 8.2
percentage points lower than the Fiscal Year 2011 12 release cohort’s rate of 54.3 percent.
The Fiscal Year 2012 13 release cohort represented the first cohort of offenders whose release from
prison (July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013) and full three year follow up (ending June 30, 2016)
periods occurred after the implementation of Realignment.
Of the 35,790 offenders released in Fiscal Year 2012 13, 56.5 percent (20,208 offenders) were
released to Post Release Community Supervision (PRCS), 41.8 percent (14,951 offenders) were
released to parole, and 1.8 percent (631 offenders) were directly discharged.

Type of Conviction
Of the 16,496 offenders who were convicted during the three year follow up period, 61.1 percent
(10,079 offenders) were convicted of felony offenses and 38.9 percent (6,417 offenders) were
convicted of misdemeanor offenses.
Offenders convicted of felony drug/alcohol offenses represented 21.4 percent (3,536 offenders) of
those convicted, followed by felony property crimes (15.6 percent or 2,577 offenders), and felony
crimes against persons (13.5 percent or 2,235 offenders). Other felony crimes represented 10.5
percent (1,731 offenders) of the total convictions.
Offenders convicted of misdemeanor drug/alcohol crimes represented 13.7 percent (2,264
offenders) of those convicted, followed by misdemeanor crimes against persons (10.2 percent or
1,686 offenders), and misdemeanor property crimes (7.8 percent or 1,289 offenders). Other
misdemeanor crimes represented 7.1 percent (1,178 offenders) of the total convictions.

vii

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

Outcomes by Offender Demographics
Male offenders comprised over 90 percent of the release cohort (92.6 percent or 33,137 offenders)
and their three year conviction rate (46.8 percent) was 9.2 percentage points higher than the rate of
female offenders (37.6 percent), who comprised 7.4 percent (2,653 offenders) of the release cohort.
Younger offenders had higher three year conviction rates than older offenders. Offenders ages 18 –
19 had the highest three year conviction rate (62.4 percent or 242 offenders) of any age group and
were followed by offenders ages 20 – 24 with a three year conviction rate of 57.6 percent (2,967
offenders). Offenders ages 60 and over had the lowest three year conviction rate (20.0 percent or
189 offenders) among all age groups.

Outcomes by Offender Characteristics
Offenders committed for property crimes (25.3 percent of the release cohort or 9,037 offenders)
had the highest three year conviction rate (54.7 percent or 4,947 offenders) of any commitment
offense category, while offenders committed for crimes against persons (39.3 percent of the release
cohort or 14,071 offenders) had the lowest conviction rate (38.7 percent or 5,444 offenders) of any
commitment offense category. Offenders committed for drug crimes (20.7 percent of the release
cohort or 7,395 offenders) had a three year conviction rate of 46.8 percent.
The majority of offenders in the release cohort (98.6 percent or 35,298 offenders) were sentenced
to a determinate term. Offenders sentenced to an indeterminate term comprised just over one
percent of the release cohort (1.4 percent or 492 offenders) and had a substantially lower three
year conviction rate (4.1 percent or 20 offenders) than offenders serving a determinate sentence
(46.7 percent or 16,476 offenders).
Of the 478 offenders released by the Board of Parole Hearings, 4.2 percent (20 offenders) were
convicted of a new crime during the three year follow up period. Of the 14 offenders released by
other means (e.g. court order), none were convicted of a new crime during the three year follow up
period.
Offenders who were committed for non serious and non violent offenses (61.0 percent of the
release cohort or 21,821 offenders) had a three year conviction rate of 51.1 percent. Offenders
committed for a serious offense (20.5 percent of the release cohort or 7,343 offenders) had a three
year conviction rate of 46.6 percent, and offenders committed for a violent offense (18.5 percent of
the release cohort or 6,626 offenders) had a three year conviction rate of 29.1 percent.
Offenders with a California Static Risk Assessment score of high (44.5 percent of the release cohort
or 15,931 offenders) had a higher three year conviction rate (62.4 percent) than offenders with a
score of moderate (29.5 percent of the release cohort or 10,561 offenders) with a rate of 43.8
percent, and offenders with a score of low (26.0 percent of the release cohort or 9,296 offenders)
with a rate of 20.7 percent.
viii

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

Most offenders in the release cohort (81.3 percent or 29,093 offenders) did not have a mental
health designation at release and had a three year conviction rate of 45.0 percent. Offenders
assigned to the Enhanced Outpatient Program (2.6 percent of the release cohort or 914 offenders)
had a three year conviction rate of 51.8 percent, and offenders assigned to the Correctional Clinical
Case Management System (16.0 percent of the release cohort or 5,728 offenders) had a three year
conviction rate of 50.9 percent.
Offenders who received in prison Substance Use Disorder Treatment (SUDT) and completed
aftercare (339 offenders) had a lower three year conviction rate (29.2 percent) than offenders
associated with any other combination of in prison SUDT or aftercare (e.g. offenders who received
in prison SUDT and received some or no aftercare).

ix

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

1 Introduction
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) presents the 2017 Outcome
Evaluation Report, part of an annual series, which examines arrest, conviction, and return to prison
rates for offenders released from CDCR adult institutions during a given fiscal year. This year’s report
presents arrest, conviction, and return to prison rates for the 35,790 offenders released from CDCR’s
adult institutions between July 1, 2012 and June 30, 2013 (Fiscal Year 2012 13) and tracked for three
years following the date of their release.
Commencing with the 2016 Outcome Evaluation Report, CDCR transitioned the primary measure of
recidivism from the three year return to prison rate to the three year conviction rate, to better coincide
with the state wide definition of recidivism and to provide a more meaningful measure of reoffending
behavior for CDCR offenders following the implementation of California’s Public Safety Realignment Act
(Realignment).
Consistent with earlier reports published by CDCR, all offenders released from an adult institution over
the course of a fiscal year were followed for three years after the date of their release. In addition to the
three year conviction rate, which is provided by offender demographics (e.g. race, age) and offender
characteristics (e.g. commitment offense, length of stay), this report includes three year conviction rates
for the Fiscal Year 2011 12 and 2012 13 release cohorts, by offender demographics and characteristics
to allow for comparisons (Appendix A). This report also includes the three year conviction rate by county
of release (Appendix B). Finally, supplemental measures of recidivism (arrests and returns to prison) are
provided in Appendix C, D, and E to provide the most comprehensive picture of reoffending behaviors
among CDCR offenders as possible.
In Fiscal Year 2012 13, 35,790 offenders were released from a CDCR adult institution and were tracked
for three years following the date of their release. The three year conviction rate for the 35,790
offenders who comprise the Fiscal Year 2012 13 release cohort was 46.1 percent.13 As shown in Figure 1,
the three year conviction rate of 46.1 percent for the Fiscal Year 2012 13 release cohort was 8.2
percentage points lower than the Fiscal Year 2011 12 release cohort’s three year conviction rate of 54.3
percent. Overall, across the past 11 release cohorts examined by CDCR, the three year conviction rate
has been generally stable with some variation; which typical, since a number of factors contribute to
changes in rates.14
The three year return to prison rate (now a supplemental measure of recidivism) for the Fiscal Year
2012 13 release cohort was 22.2 percent, a 2.8 percentage point decrease from the Fiscal Year 2011 12
13

During Fiscal Year 2012 13, a total of 36,527 offenders were released from a CDCR adult institution. Of these offenders, 35,790 offenders had
a Department of Justice automated rap sheet. Arrest and conviction data only include the 35,790 offenders with an automated rap sheet, while
return to prison data includes all 36,527 offenders released from prison.
14
Lurigio, A., (2014) Violent Victimization in the United States. Washington, DC: Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National
Institute of Justice https://www.nij.gov/topics/victims victimization/Documents/violent victimization twg 2015 lurigio white paper.pdf

1

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

release cohorts, the largest number of offenders were convicted of felony drug/alcohol crimes (9.9
percent of the release cohort or 3,536 offenders), followed by felony property crimes (7.2 percent of the
release cohort or 2,577 offenders), and misdemeanor drug/alcohol crimes (6.3 percent of the release
cohort or 2,264 offenders).
Figure 2. Three Year Outcomes for Offenders Released from State Prison in Fiscal Year 2012 13

The current Fiscal Year 2012 13 release cohort is the first group of offenders released by CDCR in which
their release (July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013) and three year follow up (ending June 30, 2016)
periods occurred after the implementation of Realignment, allowing CDCR to more thoroughly examine
Realignment’s impact on the three year return to prison rate. Much of the decrease observed in the
three year return to prison rate has been attributed to a decrease in parole violations. Under
Realignment, most parole revocations are served in county jail rather than state prison.15 While
decreases in returns for parole violations heavily influenced the three year return to prison rate, the
three year conviction rate has never included parole violations and was not impacted by Realignment’s
changes to the parole revocation process. Further, Realignment did not impact which crimes were
eligible for felony sentences, only where sentences were served. As fewer offenders were eligible to
serve sentences for new crimes or parole violations in prison, the three year return to prison rate
trended downward. Post Realignment, the three year conviction rate provides a more stable and
meaningful measure of the reoffending behaviors of CDCR offenders.
In November 2014, California voters passed Proposition 47, which reduced penalties for certain non
serious and non violent property and drug crimes by mandating a misdemeanor sentence instead of a
felony.16 While Proposition 47 was only in effect for part of the Fiscal Year 2012 13 release cohort’s
three year follow up period, the policy is expected to have an impact on future release cohorts and in
15

With the exception of offenders previously sentenced to a life term (lifers) and some sex offenders. Penal Code section 3000.8 remands
persons on parole pursuant to section 3000.0, subdivision (b), paragraph (4) to the custody of CDCR. For more information regarding specific
sex offenses, please see: Penal Code section 3000.0(b)(4).
16
The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act full text version:
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/130060%20(130060%20(Neighborhood%20and%20School%20Funding)).pdf

3

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

particular, the number of felony and misdemeanor convictions for property crimes and drug/alcohol
crimes. Although more time is needed to fully understand the impacts of Proposition 47 on the three
year conviction rate, CDCR will continue to monitor Proposition 47’s effect on the type of conviction
(e.g. felony and misdemeanor property crimes and drug crimes) for CDCR offenders.
Realignment’s impact on the three year return to prison rate is evident: the three year return to prison
rate for the last group of CDCR offenders released pre Realignment (Fiscal Year 2007 08) was 63.7
percent, 41.5 percentage points higher than the Fiscal Year 2012 13 release cohort’s rate of 22.2
percent. With the three year return to prison rate experiencing drastic declines due to Realignment, the
three year conviction rate is a more meaningful measure of post release recidivism. CDCR will continue
to monitor the impacts of policies, such as Proposition 47, on arrest, conviction, and return to prison
rates to provide the most comprehensive picture of reoffending as possible and in order to spur
discussion around the best possible ways to reduce reoffending among offenders released from CDCR.

4

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

2 Evaluation Design
Definitions
The State of California defines recidivism as “conviction of a new felony or misdemeanor committed
within three years of release from custody or committed within three years of placement on supervision
for a previous criminal conviction.”17 The definition also allows for supplemental measures of recidivism
including: new arrests, returns to custody, criminal filings, or supervision violations. In prior reports,
CDCR used a supplemental measure, the three year return to prison rate, as the primary measure of
recidivism. Commencing with the 2016 Outcome Evaluation Report, CDCR implemented the State of
California’s definition of recidivism and used the three year conviction rate as the primary measure of
recidivism.
The three year conviction rate is defined as follows:
“An individual convicted of a felony18 and incarcerated in a CDCR adult institution who was released to
parole, discharged after being paroled, or directly discharged during Fiscal Year 2012 13 and
subsequently convicted of a felony or misdemeanor offense within three years of their release date.”
The conviction rate is calculated using the ratio of the number of offenders in the release cohort who
were convicted during the follow up period, to the total number of offenders in the release cohort,
multiplied by 100.
Conviction Rate

=

Number Convicted
X 100
Release Cohort

Appendix C of this report provides supplemental recidivism rates using arrest and return to prison data
for year to year comparisons. Three year rates for each of the supplemental measures are available
from Fiscal Year (FY) 2002 03 through 2012 13. One year and two year rates are available for the FY
2013 14 release cohort and one year rates are available for the FY 2014 15 release cohort.

Methods
This report provides conviction rates at one , two , and three year intervals for offenders released from
CDCR’s Division of Adult Institutions (DAI) between July 1, 2012 and June 30, 2013 (FY 2012 13). The
release cohort includes: 1) offenders who were directly discharged from CDCR; 2) offenders who were
released to parole or PRCS for the first time on their current term; and 3) offenders who were released
to parole on their current term prior to FY 2012 13, returned to prison on this term, and were then re
released during FY 2012 13. Convictions are further examined according to offender demographics (e.g.
gender and age) and offender characteristics (e.g. commitment offense and sentence type).
17

Section 3027 of California Penal Code required the Board of State and Community Corrections to develop a state wide definition of
recidivism.
18
Due to reporting limitations, civil addicts are excluded.

5

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

Data Sources
Data were extracted from CDCR’s Strategic Offender Management System (SOMS), CDCR’s system of
record, to identify offenders released between July 1, 2012 and June 30, 2013 and to determine which
released offenders returned to state prison during the three year follow up period. Arrest and
conviction data were obtained from the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Criminal Justice Information
System and the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System.

Data Limitations
Data quality is important with all analyses performed by CDCR’s Office of Research. The intent of this
report is to provide summary (aggregate) information, rather than individual information. The aggregate
data are strong when a large number of records (releases) are available for analysis, but are less robust
as subgroups are influenced by nuances associated with each case. Therefore, caution should be
exercised when interpreting results associated with fewer records. As such, conviction rates are only
presented for offender releases (i.e. denominators) that are equal to or greater than 30.
Conviction rates are fixed at three years, meaning the follow up period is considered complete and no
further analyses are performed. Arrest, conviction, and return to prison data presented in the
appendices of this report may see slight fluctuations, particularly as the one year and two year rates are
updated in subsequent reporting years. These data are routinely updated in accordance with criminal
justice system processing. As data become available, subsequent reports will be updated.

Impacts of Proposition 47 and Reporting Limitations
Proposition 47 passed in November 2014 and reduced penalties for certain non serious and non violent
property and drug crimes by mandating a misdemeanor sentence instead of a felony.19 Under Proposition
47, offenders serving sentences in prison for felony offenses can petition the courts for resentencing
under new misdemeanor provisions and offenders who have completed their sentences may apply to
have felony convictions reclassified as misdemeanors, unless the offender has been previously convicted
of a disqualifying offense.20
Proposition 47 was in effect for varying amounts of time during the FY 2012 13 release cohort’s three
year follow up period. Since the proposition’s resentencing provisions were retroactive, some offenders
in the release cohort were eligible to have their commitment offense reclassified as a misdemeanor.
Additionally, some offenders who were convicted after release may have been eligible to have their
post release felony conviction reclassified as a misdemeanor. Data are not available on offenders who
19
The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act full text version:
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/130060%20(130060%20(Neighborhood%20and%20School%20Funding)).pdf
20
Disqualification from provisions of the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act only applies to offenders with an offense requiring registration
pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 290 or offenders with a prior conviction for an offense specified in Section 667(e)(2)(C)(iv).

6

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

were actually resentenced after release from CDCR. However, approximately 22.8 percent of the release
cohort (8,148 offenders) were committed to prison for offenses that were potentially eligible for
resentencing under Proposition 47.21 Commitment offense data (presented in Section 6.2.2), represent
the offense for which offenders were originally committed to prison and do not represent any
resentencing that took place after Proposition 47’s passage.
Furthermore, over ten percent of the release cohort (10.3 percent or 3,695 offenders) had a post
release felony conviction that occurred prior to the implementation of Proposition 47 and was
potentially eligible for resentencing to a misdemeanor. Type of conviction data (Sections 5.1 and 5.2)
present the felony offense for which the offender was originally convicted during the three year follow
up period and do not reflect any reclassification of the felony offense to misdemeanor that may have
occurred following the implementation of Proposition 47.
Similarly, information related to the type of release (i.e. to parole, PRCS or directly discharged)
presented in Section 4.1, represent the type of supervision to which the offender was originally released
and does not include any discharges from parole or PRCS that took place following the implementation
of Proposition 47. In other words, if an offender was released to PRCS and subsequently discharged
from supervision as a result of Proposition 47, the offender is categorized as being released to PRCS
regardless of discharge from supervision during the three year follow up period.

21

The estimate of offenders eligible for resentencing is based upon the offenses for which an offender was convicted and does not consider
details of the offense (e.g. the dollar amount associated with petty theft or prior disqualifying offenses) courts may consider in reducing a
felony to a misdemeanor. This estimate is based upon the limited data available to CDCR.

7

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

Offender Demographics
Gender
Of the 35,790 offenders released from prison in FY 2012 13, the majority were male (92.6 percent or
33,137 offenders) and less than eight percent (7.4 percent or 2,653 offenders) were female.

Age at Release
Offenders ages 30 – 34 represented the largest number of releases (17.4 percent or 6,211 offenders) in
the release cohort, followed by offenders ages 25 – 29 (17.3 percent or 6,208 offenders). Over 80
percent (83.9 percent or 30,040 offenders) of the release cohort was comprised of offenders between
the ages of 20 – 49. Offenders ages 18 – 19 comprised a very small portion of the release cohort (1.1
percent or 388 offenders), as did offenders 60 and over (2.6 percent or 947 offenders).

Race/Ethnicity
Over 40 percent (42 percent or 15,018 offenders) of the FY 2012 13 release cohort were
Hispanic/Latino, followed by White (26.1 percent or 9,352 offenders) and Black/African American (26.1
percent or 9,335 offenders). Over three percent (3.6 percent or 1,304 offenders) belonged to the other
race/ethnicity category, 1.2 percent (422 offenders) were Asian/Pacific Islander, and 1.0 percent (359
offenders) were American Indian/Alaskan Native.

County of Release
Nearly one third of the FY 2012 13 release cohort (32.1 percent or 11,478 offenders) were released to
Los Angeles County, followed by San Bernardino County with 8.5 percent of the release cohort (3,053
offenders), and San Diego County with 7.0 percent of the release cohort (2,502 offenders). Over 80
percent (80.4 percent or 28,766 offenders) of the offenders were released to 12 California counties, as
shown in Table 1. Nearly 20 percent (17.9 percent or 6,394 offenders) were released to all other
California counties and 1.8 percent (630 offenders) were directly discharged from prison.

9

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

Table 1. Demographics of Offenders Released in Fiscal Year 2012 13
Demographics

Number

35,790

100.0%

33,137

92.6%

2,653

Total

Percent

7.4%

Gender
Ma l e
Fema l e
Age at Release
18 19

388

1.1%

20 24

5,148

14.4%

25 29

6,208

17.3%

30 34

6,211

17.4%

35 39

4,566

12.8%

40 44

4,087

11.4%
10.7%

45 49

3,820

50 54

2,893

8.1%

55 59

1,522

4.3%

947

2.6%

60 a nd over
Race/Ethnicity

15,018

42.0%

Whi te

Hi s pa ni c/La ti no

9,352

26.1%

Bl a ck/Afri ca n Ameri ca n

9,335

26.1%

As i a n/Pa ci fi c Is l a nder

422

1.2%

Ameri ca n Indi a n/Al a s ka n Na ti ve

359

1.0%

1,304

3.6%

Other
County of Release

11,478

32.1%

Sa n Berna rdi no County

Los Angel es County

3,053

8.5%

Sa n Di ego County

2,502

7.0%

Ri vers i de County

2,292

6.4%

Ora nge County

2,067

5.8%

Sa cra mento County

1,647

4.6%

Kern County

1,275

3.6%

Fres no County

1,215

3.4%

Sa nta Cl a ra County

932

2.6%

Al a meda County

882

2.5%

Sa n Joa qui n County

767

2.1%

Sta ni s l a us County

656

1.8%

Al l Other Counti es

6,394

17.9%

630

1.8%

Di rectl y Di s cha rged

10

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

Offender Characteristics
Commitment Offense
Nearly 40 percent of the FY 2012 13 release cohort (39.3 percent or 14,071 offenders) were committed
to prison for crimes against persons, followed by property crimes (25.3 percent or 9,037 offenders), and
drug crimes (20.7 percent or 7,395 offenders). Over twenty percent (14.8 percent or 5,287 offenders)
were committed for other crimes.

Sentence Type
Most of the offenders in the FY 2012 13 release cohort served a determinate sentence (77 percent or
27,544 offenders). Over twenty percent (21.7 percent or 7,754 offenders) of the release cohort were
second strikers sentenced to a determinate term and 1.4 percent (492 offenders) were sentenced to an
indeterminate term.

Sex Registration Requirement
Less than 10 percent of the release cohort (9.3 percent or 3,313 offenders) were required to register as
sex offenders. The majority of the release cohort (90.7 percent or 32,477 offenders) did not have a sex
registration requirement.

Serious/Violent Offenders
Most of the offenders released (61 percent or 21,821 offenders) were serving a term for a non serious
or non violent offense. Approximately 20 percent (20.5 percent or 7,343 offenders) were serving a term
for a serious offense and 18.5 percent (6,626 offenders) were serving a term for a violent offense.

Mental Health Designation
At the time of their release, 81.3 percent (29,093 offenders) of the release cohort did not have a mental
health assignment through CDCR’s mental health delivery system. Sixteen percent (5,728 offenders)
were assigned to the Correctional Clinical Case Management System, and 2.6 percent (914 offenders)
assigned to the Enhanced Outpatient Program. Less than one percent of the release cohort (19
offenders) were assigned to the Inpatient category.

11

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

Risk Score
Less than half of the release cohort (44.5 percent or 15,931 offenders) had a California Static Risk
Assessment (CSRA) score of high, followed by offenders with a score of moderate (29.5 percent or
10,561 offenders), and offenders with a score of low (26 percent or 9,296 offenders). Two offenders did
not have a CSRA score.

Length of Stay
Over sixty percent of the release cohort (61.6 percent or 22,030 offenders) had a length of stay of two
years or less. Less than ten percent (9.9 percent or 3,554 offenders) had a length of stay of six months or
less and 22.1 percent (7,905 offenders) had a length of stay between seven months to a year. Offenders
with longer stays comprised smaller portions of the release cohort: offenders with a length of stay of 10
– 15 years comprised 3.1 percent (1,126 offenders) of the release cohort and offenders with a length of
stay of 15 years or more comprised 3.0 percent of the cohort (1,071 offenders).

Number of CDCR Stays Ever
Of the 35,790 offenders released, 41.8 percent (14,945 offenders) had one stay at a CDCR institution,
followed by 12.1 percent (4,340 offenders) with two stays at a CDCR institution, and 7.7 percent (2,765
offenders) with three stays. The number of offenders in each category decreased as the number of stays
increased, with the exception of 15 or more stays (4.0 percent or 1,442 offenders).

12

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

Table 2. Characteristics of Offenders Released in Fiscal Year 2012 13
Characteristics

Number

Percent

Commitment Offense Category
Cri mes Aga i ns t Pers ons

14,071

39.3%

Property Cri mes

9,037

25.3%

Drug Cri mes

7,395

20.7%

Other Cri mes

5,287

14.8%

27,544

77.0%

7,754

21.7%

492

1.4%

No

32,477

90.7%

Yes

3,313

9.3%

Seri ous

7,343

20.5%

Vi ol ent

6,626

18.5%

21,821

61.0%

5,728

16.0%

914

2.6%

36

0.1%

Sentence Type
Determi na te Sentenci ng La w
Second Stri kers (Determi na te Sentenci ng La w)
Li fers (Indetermi na te Sentenci ng La w)
Sex Registration Requirement

Serious and/or Violent Offenders

Non Seri ous /Non Vi ol ent
Mental Health Designation
Correcti ona l Cl i ni ca l Ca s e Ma na gement Sys tem
Enha nced Outpa ti ent Progra m
Menta l Hea l th Cri s i s Bed
Inpa ti ent

19

0.1%

No Menta l Hea l th Des i gna ti on

29,093

81.3%

Hi gh

15,931

44.5%

Modera te

10,561

29.5%

Low

9,296

26.0%

N/A

2

0.0%

CSRA Risk Score

Length of Stay
Les s tha n 6 Months

3,554

9.9%

7 12 months

7,905

22.1%

13 18 months

5,865

16.4%

19 24 months

4,706

13.1%

2 3 yea rs

4,804

13.4%

3 4 yea rs

2,398

6.7%

4 5 yea rs

1,604

4.5%

5 10 yea rs

2,757

7.7%

10 15 yea rs

1,126

3.1%

15 + yea rs

1,071

3.0%

13

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

Table 2. Characteristics of Offenders Released in Fiscal Year 2012 13 (continued)
Characteristics

Number

Percent

Number of CDCR Stays Ever
1

14,945

41.8%

2

4,340

12.1%

3

2,765

7.7%

4

2,207

6.2%

5

1,999

5.6%

6

1,613

4.5%

7

1,446

4.0%

8

1,232

3.4%

9

941

2.6%

10

800

2.2%

11

697

1.9%

12

583

1.6%

13

429

1.2%

14

351

1.0%

1,442

4.0%

15 +

14

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

released to parole.23 Further, younger offenders who are more likely to commit non serious and non
violent property and drug crimes are characterized by some of the highest recidivism rates among all
offenders, which was an additional factor that influenced the conviction rate of PRCS offenders
upward.24 Offenders characterized by lower recidivism rates and a lower risk to reoffend (offenders
committing serious and violent crimes) continue to be released to parole thereby influencing the three
year conviction rate of parolees downward.
Direct comparisons between offenders released to PRCS and parole should not be made, as the two
groups represent substantially different groups of offenders. Rather, the rate for PRCS offenders (52.2
percent) should be used as a baseline and compared to rates for PRCS offenders provided in future
Outcome Evaluation Reports and the three year conviction rate for parolees (38.8 percent) should be
compared to future rates for parolees. The overall conviction rate (46.1 percent) provides the most
comprehensive picture of reoffending among all offenders released from CDCR institutions into the
community.
In earlier reports, the three year return to prison rate and the three year conviction rate were
organized by first releases (an offender’s first release on the current term for a new admission) and re
releases (an offender’s subsequent release on the current term for a parole violation). For example, the
vast majority of the FY 2011 12 release cohort was admitted to prison prior to the implementation of
Realignment with nearly a third (33.2 percent or 24,858 offenders) admitted for parole violations (re
releases) and 66.8 percent or 50,017 of the 74,875 offenders considered first releases.25 Prior to
Realignment, offenders served parole revocations in State prison and a large number of each release
cohort was comprised of re releases. Post Realignment all parole revocations are served in county jail,
with the exception of offenders previously sentenced to a life term and some sex offenders, which
substantially reduced the number of re releases.26
Realignment was operational for all of the period during which the FY 2012 13 release cohort was
released, with very few offenders eligible to return to prison for parole violations. Specifically, of the
current FY 2012 13 release cohort, less than one percent (331 offenders) were re releases and these
offenders were released and returned to prison for a parole violation, prior to the implementation of
Realignment. With Realignment causing substantial declines to the number of re releases, providing the
three year conviction rate by type of release (to parole, PRCS or directly discharged), provides a more
meaningful presentation of the three year conviction rate as displayed in Table 3.

23
For more information regarding conviction rates by commitment offense category, serious and violent offenses, and risk scores, please see
the following sections: 2.2.1 Commitment Offense Category, 5.2.6 Serious and Violent Offenses, and 5.2.8 Risk of Conviction.
24
For more information regarding conviction rates by age at release, please see 5.1.2 Age at Release.
25
See pages 14 – 15 of the 2016 Outcome Evaluation Report for more information regarding first and re releases.
26
Section 3000.8 remands persons on parole pursuant to Section 3000.0, subdivision (b), paragraph (4) to the custody of CDCR. For more
information regarding specific sex offenses, please see: Penal Code 3000.0(b)(4).

16

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

Table 3. Conviction Rates for the Fiscal Year 2012 13 Release Cohort by Type of Release

Type of Release

Number
Released

One Year
Number
Conviction
Convicted
Rate

Two Year
Number
Conviction
Convicted
Rate

Three Year
Number
Conviction
Convicted
Rate

Pos t Relea s e Community Supervis ion

20,208

5,085

25.2%

8,755

43.3%

10,553

52.2%

Pa rol e

14,951

2,239

15.0%

4,560

30.5%

5,795

38.8%

Di rectly Dis cha rged
Total

631

39

6.2%

108

17.1%

148

23.5%

35,790

7,363

20.6%

13,423

37.5%

16,496

46.1%

17

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

Table 4. Three Year Quarterly and Cumulative Rate of Conviction for the 16,496 Offenders Convicted
During the Three Year Follow Up Period
2nd

3rd

4th

5th

Percenta ge Convi cted

6.0%

12.1%

13.7%

12.8%

11.9%

9.7%

8.1%

7 0%

5.7%

5.3%

4.0%

3.6%

Cumul a ti ve Percenta ge

6.0%

18.1%

31.8%

44.6%

56.5%

66.3%

74.3%

81.4%

87.1%

92.4%

96.4%

100.0%

Number Convi cted

993

1,992

2,267

2,111

1,962

1,604

1,335

1,159

946

867

665

595

Cumul a ti ve Number

993

2,985

5,252

7,363

9,325

10,929

12,264

13,423

14,369

15,236

15,901

16,496

Quarters After Release

1st

19

6th

7th

8th

9th

10th

11th

12th

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

5 Offender Outcomes and Type of Conviction
Three Year Outcomes for the Fiscal Year 2012 13 Release Cohort
This section presents outcomes for the 35,790 offenders released during FY 2012 13. Arrest and return
to prison rates are provided in Appendix C of this report and type of arrest and type of return data are
provided in Appendix D and Appendix E.
Type of conviction data (i.e. misdemeanor or felony convictions) only include the most serious
conviction in the first conviction episode, meaning if an offender was convicted of a misdemeanor and
subsequently convicted of a felony, only the misdemeanor conviction was included.
Figure 6. Three Year Outcomes for the Fiscal Year 2012 13 Release Cohort

Figure 6 presents three year outcomes for the 35,790 offenders released from prison during FY 2012 13.
Of the 35,790 offenders, 53.9 percent (19,294 offenders) had no convictions during the three year
follow up period. Over a quarter of the release cohort (28.2 percent or 10,079 offenders) were
convicted of a felony and 17.9 percent (6,417 offenders) were convicted of a misdemeanor.
Table 5 presents the type of conviction for the 74,875 offenders released during FY 2011 12 and the
35,790 offenders released during FY 2012 13 for comparative purposes. Between the two release
cohorts, the number of offenders without a conviction during the three year follow up period increased
8.2 percentage points, from 45.7 percent (34,321 offenders) to 53.9 percent (19,294 offenders). The
number of felony and misdemeanor convictions decreased between the FY 2011 12 and FY 2012 13
release cohorts: felonies decreased 5.0 percentage points, from 33.2 percent (24,841 offenders) to 28.2
percent (10,079 offenders), while misdemeanors decreased 3.2 percentage points from 21.1 percent
(15,803 offenders) to 17.9 percent (6,417 offenders).
20

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

Of the 35,790 offenders released in FY 2012 13, 9.9 percent (3,536 offenders) were convicted of felony
drug/alcohol crimes, followed by 7.2 percent (2,577 offenders) for felony property crimes, and 6.2
percent (2,235 offenders) for felony crimes against persons. Over four percent (4.8 percent or 1,731
offenders) were convicted of other felony crimes. The percentage of offenders convicted of each type of
felony decreased between the FY 2011 12 and FY 2012 13 release cohorts. Felony property crimes saw
the largest decrease at 2.7 percentage points (from 9.9 percent to 7.2 percent).
Of the 35,790 offenders released in FY 2012 13, 6.3 percent (2,264 offenders) were convicted of
misdemeanor drug/alcohol crimes, followed by 4.7 percent (1,686 offenders) for misdemeanor crimes
against persons, and 3.6 percent (1,289 offenders) for misdemeanor property crimes. Over three
percent (3.3 percent or 1,178 offenders) were convicted for other misdemeanor crimes. The percentage
of offenders convicted for each type of misdemeanor decreased between the FY 2011 12 and FY 2012
13 release cohorts. Misdemeanor crimes against persons saw the largest decrease at 1.0 percentage
point (from 5.7 percent to 4.7 percent).
Table 5. Three Year Outcomes for the Fiscal Year 2011 12 and Fiscal Year 2012 13 Release Cohorts
FY 2011 12
Number

Type of Conviction

Percent

FY 2012 13
Number

Percent

No Conviction

34,231

45.7%

19,294

53.9%

All Felonies

10,079

28.2%

24,841

33.2%

Fel ony Drug/Al cohol Cri mes

8,699

11.6%

3,536

9.9%

Fel ony Property Cri mes

7,416

9.9%

2,577

7.2%

Fel ony Cri mes Aga i ns t Pers ons

5,007

6.7%

2,235

6.2%

Fel ony Other Cri mes

3,719

5.0%

1,731

4.8%

All Misdemeanors

15,803

21.1%

6,417

17.9%

Mi s demea nor Drug/Al cohol Cri mes

5,287

7.1%

2,264

6.3%

Mi s demea nor Cri mes Aga i ns t Pers ons

4,267

5.7%

1,686

4.7%

Mi s demea nor Property Cri mes

3,184

4.3%

1,289

3.6%

Mi s demea nor Other Cri mes

3,065

4.1%

1,178

3.3%

Total

74,875

100.0%

35,790

100.0%

21

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

Type of Conviction for the Fiscal Year 2012 13 Offenders Convicted Following
Release from Prison
Figure 7. Type of Conviction for the Fiscal Year 2012 13 Offenders Convicted Following Release from
Prison

Of the 35,790 offenders released during FY 2012 13, 46.1 percent (16,496 offenders) were convicted
within three years of their release. This section excludes the 19,294 offenders who were not convicted
during the three year follow up period and focuses on the 16,496 offenders that were convicted, in
order to better understand the type of conviction and how convictions change over time.
Of the 16,496 offenders convicted during the follow up period, 61.1 percent (10,079 offenders) were
convicted of a felony offense and 38.9 percent (6,417 offenders) were convicted of a misdemeanor
offense. Overall, felony and misdemeanor convictions stayed the same (61.1 percent and 38.9 percent
of all convictions, respectively) between the FY 2011 12 and FY 2012 13 release cohorts. With regards to
felony convictions, felony property crimes saw a decrease of 2.6 percentage points between the two
release cohorts (18.2 percent and 15.6 percent of all convictions, respectively), while felony drug and
alcohol crimes remained the same at 21.4 percent of all convictions. Other felony crimes saw an
increase of 1.3 percentage points (from 9.2 percent to 10.5 percent) and felony crimes against persons
saw an increase of 1.2 percentage points (from 12.3 percent to 13.5 percent).
With regards to misdemeanor convictions, other misdemeanor crimes decreased 0.4 of a percentage
point (from 7.5 percent to 7.1 percent) between the FY 2011 12 and FY 2012 13 release cohorts, while
misdemeanor crimes against persons decreased 0.3 of a percentage point (from 10.5 percent to 10.2
percent). Misdemeanor drug/alcohol crimes saw an increase of 0.7 of a percentage point (from 13.0
percent to 13.7 percent), while misdemeanor property crimes stayed the same at 7.8 percent of all
convictions.
22

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

The largest number of convictions for the FY 2012 13 release cohort were associated with felony
drug/alcohol crimes (21.4 percent or 3,536 offenders), followed by felony property crimes (15.6 percent
or 2,577 offenders), and misdemeanor drug/alcohol crimes (13.7 percent or 2,264 offenders). Together,
felony and misdemeanor drug/alcohol crimes accounted for over a third of all convictions (35.2 percent
or 5,800 offenders) among offenders released in FY 2012 13.
Table 6. Type of Conviction for the Fiscal Year 2011 12 and Fiscal Year 2012 13 Offenders Convicted
Following Release from Prison
FY 2011 12

FY 2012 13

Type of Conviction

Number

All Felonies

24,841

61.1%

10,079

61.1%

Fel ony Drug/Al cohol Cri mes

8,699

21.4%

3,536

21.4%

Fel ony Property Cri mes

7,416

18.2%

2,577

15.6%

Fel ony Cri mes Aga i ns t Pers ons

5,007

12.3%

2,235

13.5%

Fel ony Other Cri mes

3,719

9.2%

1,731

10.5%

15,803

38.9%

6,417

38.9%

5,287

13.0%

2,264

13.7%

Mi s demea nor Cri mes Aga i ns t Pers ons

4,267

10.5%

1,686

10.2%

Mi s demea nor Property Cri mes

3,184

7.8%

1,289

7.8%

Mi s demea nor Other Cri mes

3,065

7.5%

1,178

7.1%

Total

40,644

100.0%

16,496

100.0%

All Misdemeanors
Mi s demea nor Drug/Al cohol Cri mes

23

Percent

Number

Percent

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

When comparing the FY 2011 12 and FY 2012 13 release cohorts, both males and females in the FY
2012 13 release cohorts had lower conviction rates than male and female offenders in the FY 2011 12
release cohort. The three year conviction rate of 46.8 percent for male offenders in the FY 2012 13
release cohort was 8.2 percentage points lower than the three year conviction rate for male offenders
in the FY 2011 12 release cohort (55.0 percent). Similarly, the three year conviction rate for female
offenders in the FY 2012 13 release cohort was 37.6 percent, which was 9.2 percentage points lower
than the rate (46.8 percent) for female offenders in the FY 2011 12 release cohort.
Table 7. Conviction Rates by Gender

Gender
Ma l e
Fema l e
Total

Number
Released

One Year
Number
Conviction
Convicted
Rate

Two Year
Number
Conviction
Convicted
Rate

Three Year
Number
Conviction
Convicted
Rate

33,137

6,955

21.0%

12,633

38.1%

15,498

46.8%

2,653

408

15.4%

790

29.8%

998

37.6%

35,790

7,363

20.6%

13,423

37.5%

16,496

46.1%

25

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

Table 8. Conviction Rates by Age at Release

Age Groups

Number
Released

One Year
Number
Conviction
Convicted
Rate

Two Year
Number
Conviction
Convicted
Rate

Three Year
Number
Conviction
Convicted
Rate

18 19

388

111

28.6%

194

50.0%

242

62.4%

20 24

5,148

1,410

27.4%

2,444

47.5%

2,967

57.6%

25 29

6,208

1,519

24.5%

2,734

44.0%

3,287

52.9%

30 34

6,211

1,359

21.9%

2,494

40.2%

3,047

49.1%

35 39

4,566

840

18.4%

1,576

34.5%

1,979

43.3%

40 44

4,087

722

17.7%

1,392

34.1%

1,724

42.2%

45 49

3,820

654

17.1%

1,220

31.9%

1,534

40.2%

50 54

2,893

480

16.6%

879

30.4%

1,094

37.8%

55 59

1,522

182

12.0%

339

22.3%

433

28.4%

947

86

9.1%

151

15.9%

189

20.0%

35,790

7,363

20.6%

13,423

37.5%

16,496

46.1%

60 a nd over
Total

27

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

Table 9. Conviction Rates by Race/Ethnicity

Race/Ethnicity
Ameri can Indi a n/Al a s ka n Na ti ve

Number
Released
359

One Year
Number
Conviction
Convicted
Rate
93

25.9%

Two Year
Number
Conviction
Convicted
Rate
157

43.7%

Three Year
Number
Conviction
Convicted
Rate
198

55.2%

Whi te

9,352

2,144

22.9%

3,773

40.3%

4,551

48.7%

Bl a ck/Afri can Ameri ca n

9,335

1,874

20.1%

3,559

38.1%

4,435

47.5%

15,018

3,004

20.0%

5,459

36.3%

6,708

44.7%

Hi s pa ni c/La ti no
As i a n/Pa ci fi c Is l a nder

422

72

17.1%

142

33.6%

175

41.5%

Other

1,304

176

13.5%

333

25.5%

429

32.9%

Total

35,790

7,363

20.6%

13,423

37.5%

16,496

46.1%

29

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

county of release. When an offender is convicted in a county other than their county of release, the
conviction is still associated with the county to which they were originally released (e.g. if an offender is
released to Sacramento County and is subsequently convicted in Riverside County, for the purposes of
this report, the new conviction is associated with Sacramento County, not Riverside County).
Of the 12 California counties with the largest number of releases, Kern County had the highest three
year conviction rate (62.1 percent or 792 offenders), while Alameda County had the lowest three year
conviction rate (34.9 percent or 308 offenders) among each of the twelve counties. Los Angeles County’s
three year conviction rate of 47.0 percent (or 5,389 offenders) fell in the middle of each of the twelve
counties. The three year conviction rate for all other California counties was 46.5 percent (2,975
offenders) and the three year conviction rate for offenders directly discharged from prison was 23.5
percent (148 offenders).
The three year conviction rate decreased among each of the 12 counties with the largest number of
releases between the FY 2011 12 and FY 2012 13 release cohorts, as did the rate for the “All Other
Counties” category. Alameda County saw the largest decrease (from 48.1 percent to 34.9 percent) at
13.2 percentage points, followed by Orange County (from 56.0 percent to 44.6 percent) at 11.4
percentage points. Although Fresno County saw the smallest decrease between the two release cohorts,
the three year conviction rate still decreased 4.1 percentage points (from 56.8 percent to 52.7 percent)
between the two fiscal years. Fiscal year comparisons for the 12 counties with the largest number of
releases, the “All Other Counties” category, and direct discharges may be found in Appendix A. One
year, two year and three year conviction rates for all California counties, as well as direct discharges
may be found in Appendix B.
Table 10. Conviction Rates by County of Release

County of Release
Kern County
Sta nis la us County
Fres no County

Number
Released

One Year
Number
Conviction
Convicted
Rate

Two Year
Number
Conviction
Convicted
Rate

Three Year
Number
Conviction
Convicted
Rate

1,275

424

33.3%

687

53.9%

792

62.1%

656

162

24.7%

290

44.2%

367

55.9%

1,215

250

20.6%

510

42.0%

640

52.7%

San Joaquin County

767

175

22.8%

324

42.2%

387

50.5%

Santa Cla ra County

932

183

19.6%

356

38.2%

449

48.2%

3,053

601

19.7%

1,183

38.7%

1,448

47.4%

San Berna rdi no County
Los Angel es County

11,478

2,537

22.1%

4,438

38.7%

5,389

47.0%

Ri vers i de County

2,292

470

20.5%

848

37.0%

1,049

45.8%

Ora nge County

2,067

451

21.8%

762

36.9%

921

44.6%

Sacra mento County

1,647

288

17.5%

567

34.4%

685

41.6%

Sa n Di ego County

2,502

361

14.4%

719

28.7%

938

37.5%

882

118

13.4%

239

27.1%

308

34.9%

6,394

1,304

20.4%

2,392

37.4%

2,975

46.5%

Al ameda County
Al l Other Counti es
Di rectly Dis cha rged
Total

630

39

6.2%

108

17.1%

148

23.5%

35,790

7,363

20.6%

13,423

37.5%

16,496

46.1%

31

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

Table 11. Conviction Rates by Commitment Offense Category

Commitment Offense Category

Number
Released

One Year
Number
Conviction
Convicted
Rate

Two Year
Number
Conviction
Convicted
Rate

Three Year
Number
Conviction
Convicted
Rate

Property Cri mes

9,037

2,336

25.8%

4,115

45.5%

4,947

54.7%

Other Cri mes

5,287

1,172

22.2%

2,145

40.6%

2,641

50.0%

Drug Cri mes

7,395

1,601

21.6%

2,829

38.3%

3,464

46.8%

Cri mes Aga i ns t Pers ons

14,071

2,254

16.0%

4,334

30.8%

5,444

38.7%

Total

35,790

7,363

20.6%

13,423

37.5%

16,496

46.1%

33

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

As shown in Figure 13 and Table 12, the three year conviction rate varied extensively when examined by
commitment offense. Offenders with a commitment offense of vehicle theft, escape, receiving stolen
property, and controlled substance possession were associated with higher conviction rates (67.0
percent, 63.4 percent, and 59.6 percent each, respectively) than offenders whose offenses tended to be
more serious and violent. Offenders with a commitment offense of first degree attempted murder,
second degree murder, and first degree murder were convicted at the lowest rates among all
commitment offense categories (3.1 percent, 3.9 percent, and 5.0 percent, respectively). Similar to
offenders committed for escape (41 offenders), offenders committed for first degree attempted murder
comprised a very small portion of the release cohort (32 offenders).
With the exception of five commitment offenses, the three year conviction rate decreased for each
commitment offense between the FY 2011 12 and FY 2012 13 release cohorts. Of the five commitment
offenses that saw an increase, escape saw the largest increase at 5.5 percentage points (from 57.9
percent to 63.4 percent). Second degree attempted murder saw the largest decrease at 13.9 percentage
points (from 34.5 percent to 20.6 percent). The three year conviction rate for offenders released in FY
2011 12 and FY 2012 13 by commitment offense are provided in Appendix A.

35

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

Table 12. Conviction Rates by Commitment Offense28

Offense
Vehicl e Theft
Es ca pe

Number
Released
1,293

One Year
Number
Conviction
Convicted
Rate
462

35.7%

Two Year
Number
Conviction
Convicted
Rate
755

58.4%

Three Year
Number
Conviction
Convicted
Rate
866

67.0%

41

13

31.7%

21

51.2%

26

63.4%

2,810

837

29.8%

1,398

49.8%

1,676

59.6%

Recei ving Stol en Property

822

245

29.8%

422

51.3%

490

59.6%

Petty Theft Wi th Prior

953

292

30.6%

465

48.8%

546

57.3%

Pos s es s ion Wea pon

2,715

769

28.3%

1,303

48.0%

1,546

56.9%

Burgla ry 2nd

1,922

512

26.6%

921

47.9%

1,090

56.7%

189

41

21.7%

87

46.0%

106

56.1%

Other Offens es

1,498

300

20.0%

596

39.8%

754

50.3%

CS Pos s es s i on

CS Other
Other As s a ult/Ba ttery

3,925

884

22.5%

1,603

40.8%

1,958

49.9%

Burgla ry 1s t

2,363

461

19.5%

934

39.5%

1,177

49.8%

Gra nd Theft

751

176

23.4%

302

40.2%

369

49.1%

Other Property

308

71

23.1%

114

37.0%

151

49.0%

Ma rij. Pos s es s For Sa l e

206

39

18.9%

80

38.8%

97

47.1%

146

27

18.5%

54

37.0%

65

44.5%

As s a ult w. Dea dly Wea pon

Ars on

3,192

541

16.9%

1,095

34.3%

1,373

43.0%

Robbery

3,257

553

17.0%

1,093

33.6%

1,393

42.8%

Forgery/Fra ud

625

117

18.7%

202

32.3%

258

41.3%

Other Sex

923

178

19.3%

304

32.9%

373

40.4%

CS Pos s es s i on For Sa l e

2,889

483

16.7%

880

30.5%

1,122

38.8%

CS Sa l es

1,064

173

16.3%

324

30.5%

388

36.5%

Ma rijua na Sa l e

130

20

15.4%

37

28.5%

47

36.2%

Driving Under Infl uence

887

63

7.1%

171

19.3%

250

28.2%

Ma ns l a ughter

289

15

5.2%

41

14.2%

67

23.2%

75

5

6.7%

12

16.0%

17

22.7%

176

15

8.5%

25

14.2%

37

21.0%

72

4

5.6%

13

18.1%

15

20.8%

Attempted Murder 2nd

204

11

5.4%

33

16.2%

42

20.6%

Ra pe

251

14

5.6%

35

13.9%

44

17.5%

81

2

2.5%

9

11.1%

13

16.0%

144

7

4.9%

13

9.0%

17

11.8%

Penetra tion With Object
Ki dna pping
CS Ma nufa cturing

Ora l Copul a ti on
Vehicul a r Ma ns l a ughter

1,073

22

2.1%

56

5.2%

87

8.1%

Murder 1s t

Lewd Act Wi th Chi l d

120

3

2.5%

5

4.2%

6

5.0%

Murder 2nd

308

1

0.3%

5

1.6%

12

3.9%

Attempted Murder 1s t

32

1

3.1%

1

3.1%

1

3.1%

Ha s hi s h Pos s es s i on

11

3

N/A

4

N/A

7

N/A

Ma rijua na Other

24

1

N/A

6

N/A

6

N/A

Sodomy

21

2

N/A

4

N/A

4

N/A

35,790

7,363

Total

20.6%

28

13,423

37.5%

16,496

46.1%

“Marijuana Other” offenses include planting, cultivating, harvesting, or possessing marijuana; hiring, employing, using a minor in the unlawful
transportation, sale, or peddling of marijuana to another minor, furnishing, giving, and/or offering marijuana to a minor. “CS Other” offenses
include possession of a controlled substance in prison; soliciting, encouraging, inducing a minor to furnish, sell, offer a controlled substance;
agreeing, consenting, offering to sell, furnish, and/or transport a CS. “Other Offenses” include false imprisonment, accessory, and/or malicious
harassment. “Other Sex Offenses” including failing to register as a sex offender, unlawful sex with a minor, and/or indecent exposure.

36

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

term. The three year conviction rate for offenders who served an indeterminate term increased
between the two cohorts: from 3.1 percent to 4.1 percent, an increase of one percentage point.
Table 13. Conviction Rates by Sentence Type

Sentence Type
Determi na te Sentenci ng La w
Second Stri kers (Determina te Sentenci ng Law)

Number
Released

Two Year
Number
Conviction
Convicted
Rate

Three Year
Number
Conviction
Convicted
Rate

27,544

6,017

21.8%

10,701

38.9%

13,024

47.3%

7,754

1,341

17.3%

2,710

34.9%

3,452

44.5%

492

5

1.0%

12

2.4%

20

4.1%

35,790

1,346

3.8%

2,722

7.6%

3,472

9.7%

Lifers (Indetermina te Sentenci ng Law)
Total

One Year
Number
Conviction
Convicted
Rate

Most offenders who serve an indeterminate term are released from prison when BPH finds them
suitable for parole or after the court orders their release. The below table shows the number of lifers
released by BPH, as well as “Other Releases”, which are comprised of both offenders who were granted
parole when BPH was restricted from considering all parole suitability factors by the court, or the court
ordered their release. Of the 478 offenders released by BPH, 4.2 percent (20 offenders) were convicted
during the three year follow up period. Eleven of the convictions were felony convictions and nine were
misdemeanor convictions. None of the 14 offenders categorized as “Other Releases” were convicted
during the three year follow up period.
Table 14. Number and Type of Conviction for Offenders Released by the Board of Parole Hearings and
Other Releases
Board of Parole
Hearings (BPH)

Other Releases*

Number

Percent

Number

478

100.0%

14

100.0%

492

100.0%

Fel ony Drug/Al cohol Cri mes

4

0.8%

0

0.0%

4

0.8%

Fel ony Other Cri mes

3

0.6%

0

0.0%

3

0.6%

Fel ony Cri me Aga i ns t Pers ons

2

0.4%

0

0.0%

2

0.4%

Fel ony Property Cri mes

2

0.4%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

Mi s demea nor Drug/Al cohol Cri mes

6

1.3%

0

0.0%

6

1.2%

Mi s demea nor Other Cri mes

1

0.2%

0

0.0%

1

0.2%

Mi s demea nor Cri mes Aga i ns t Pers ons

1

0.2%

0

0.0%

1

0.2%

Mi s demea nor Property Cri mes

1

0.2%

0

0.0%

1

0.2%

20

4.2%

0

0.0%

20

4.1%

Total Released

Percent

Total
Number

Percent

Type of Conviction

Total Convicted

*Other releases are made up of court ordered releases as well as releases resulting from a grant of parole at a court ordered hearing when the
Board of Parole Hearings was restricted by the court from considering all parole suitability factors.

38

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

Table 15. Conviction Rates by Sex Registration Status

Sex Registration Requirement

Number
Released

One Year
Number
Conviction
Convicted
Rate

Two Year
Number
Conviction
Convicted
Rate

Three Year
Number
Conviction
Convicted
Rate

No

32,477

6,993

21.5%

12,703

39.1%

15,584

48.0%

Yes

3,313

370

11.2%

720

21.7%

912

27.5%

35,790

7,363

20.6%

13,423

37.5%

16,496

46.1%

Total

40

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

6.2.5 Type of Conviction for Sex Registrants
Figure 16. Type of Conviction for Sex Registrants

The above figure and below table show the type of offense for which sex registrants were convicted
during the three year follow up period. Only data for the 912 sex registrants that were convicted during
the follow up period are represented. Of the 3,313 sex registrants in the FY 2012 13 release cohort, 912
offenders were convicted for a three year conviction rate of 27.5 percent. Of the 912 offenders who
were convicted, 49 percent (447 offenders) were convicted of a felony non sex crime and 32.5 percent
(296 offenders) were convicted of a misdemeanor non sex crime. Over three percent (3.4 percent or 31
offenders) were convicted of a felony sex crime and 1.2 percent (11 offenders) were convicted of a
misdemeanor sex crime. Over 100 offenders (127 offenders or 13.9 percent) were convicted for failure
to register as sex offenders.
Table 16. Type of Conviction for Sex Registrants
Convicted
Number

Percent

Fel ony Non Sex Cri me

447

49.0%

Mi s demea nor Non Sex Cri me

296

32.5%

Fa i l ure to Regi s ter

Reason for Conviction

127

13.9%

Fel ony Sex Cri me

31

3.4%

Mi s demea nor Sex Cri me

11

1.2%

912

100.0%

Total

41

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

Table 17. Conviction Rates for Offenders with a Serious or Violent Offense

Serious/Violent Offense

Number
Released

One Year
Number
Conviction
Convicted
Rate

Two Year
Number
Conviction
Convicted
Rate

Three Year
Number
Conviction
Convicted
Rate

Seri ous

7,343

1,373

18.7%

2,718

37.0%

3,419

46.6%

Vi olent

6,626

698

10.5%

1,480

22.3%

1,929

29.1%

Non Seri ous /Non Vi ol ent

21,821

5,292

24.3%

9,225

42.3%

11,148

51.1%

Total

35,790

7,363

20.6%

13,423

37.5%

16,496

46.1%

43

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

The three year conviction rate for each mental health designation decreased between the FY 2011 12
and FY 2012 13 release cohorts. EOP offenders saw the largest decrease at 7.3 percentage points (from
59.1 percent to 51.8 percent) between the two fiscal years, followed by CCCMS offenders at 7.1
percentage points (from 58 percent to 50.9 percent). The three year conviction rate for offenders
assigned to a Mental Health Crisis Bed decreased 6.9 percent (from 59.7 percent to 52.8 percent).
Three year conviction rates for each mental health designation are provided in Appendix A.
Table 18. Conviction Rates by Mental Health Designation

Mental Health Designation
Menta l Hea l th Cri s i s Bed
Enha nced Outpa ti ent Progra m
Correcti ona l Cl i ni ca l Ca s e Ma na gement Sys tem
Inpa ti ent

Number
Released

One Year
Number
Conviction
Convicted
Rate

Two Year
Number
Conviction
Convicted
Rate

Three Year
Number
Conviction
Convicted
Rate

36

10

27.8%

18

50.0%

19

52.8%

914

209

22.9%

395

43.2%

473

51.8%

5,728

1,326

23.1%

2,382

41.6%

2,915

50.9%

19

2

No Menta l Hea l th Des i gna ti on

29,093

5,816

20.0%

10,624

36.5%

13,082

45.0%

Total

35,790

7,363

20.6%

13,423

37.5%

16,496

46.1%

45

N/A

4

N/A

7

N/A

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

Table 19. Conviction Rates by Risk of Conviction

CSRA Score

Number
Released

One Year
Number
Conviction
Convicted
Rate

Two Year
Number
Conviction
Convicted
Rate

Three Year
Number
Conviction
Convicted
Rate

Hi gh

15,931

4,817

30.2%

8,364

52.5%

9,948

62.4%

Modera te

10,561

1,874

17.7%

3,624

34.3%

4,622

43.8%

Low

9,296

672

7.2%

1,434

15.4%

1,925

20.7%

N/A

2

0

35,790

7,363

Total

N/A

1

20.6%

47

13,423

N/A
37.5%

1
16,496

N/A
46.1%

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

Table 20. Conviction Rates by Length of Stay

Length of Stay

Number
Released

One Year
Number
Conviction
Convicted
Rate

Two Year
Number
Conviction
Convicted
Rate

Three Year
Number
Conviction
Convicted
Rate

6 months or l es s

3,554

917

25.8%

1,545

43.5%

1,859

52.3%

7 12 months

7,905

2,099

26.6%

3,528

44.6%

4,236

53.6%

13 18 months

5,865

1,398

23.8%

2,518

42.9%

3,069

52.3%

19 24 months

4,706

1,000

21.2%

1,891

40.2%

2,343

49.8%

2 3 yea rs

4,804

904

18.8%

1,753

36.5%

2,187

45.5%

3 4 yea rs

2,398

401

16.7%

794

33.1%

997

41.6%

4 5 yea rs

1,604

198

12.3%

419

26.1%

537

33.5%

5 10 yea rs

2,757

320

11.6%

676

24.5%

849

30.8%

10 15 yea rs

1,126

80

7.1%

183

16.3%

255

22.6%

15 yea rs or more
Total

1,071

46

4.3%

116

10.8%

164

15.3%

35,790

7,363

20.6%

13,423

37.5%

16,496

46.1%

49

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

The three year conviction rate for 11 stays was 62.4 percent (435 offenders) and gradually decreased
until 14 stays with a three year conviction rate of 58.7 percent (206 offenders). The highest three year
conviction rate was observed among offenders with 15 or more stays at 65.3 percent (942 offenders). In
general, the more stays at a CDCR institution, the higher the three year conviction rate. The three year
conviction rate of 65.3 percent among offenders with 15 or more stays was 30.2 percentage points
higher than the rate of offenders with one stay (35.1 percent).
The three year conviction rate decreased across every category of stays between the FY 2011 12 and FY
2012 13 release cohorts. The largest decrease (9.2 percentage points) was observed at 14 stays (from
67.9 percent to 58.7 percent) and the smallest decrease was observed at one CDCR stay (3.3 percentage
points). In FY 2011 12, the three year conviction rate for offenders with one CDCR stay was 38.4 percent
and in FY 2012 13, the three year conviction rate for offenders with one CDCR stay was 35.1 percent.
The three year conviction rates for the FY 2011 12 and FY 2012 13 release cohorts by total number of
stays may be found in Appendix A.
Table 21. Conviction Rates by Total Number of CDCR Stays

Stays

Number
Released

One Year
Number
Conviction
Convicted
Rate

Two Year
Number
Conviction
Convicted
Rate

Three Year
Number
Conviction
Convicted
Rate

1

14,945

2,169

14.5%

4,161

27.8%

5,240

35.1%

2

4,340

859

19.8%

1,594

36.7%

1,975

45.5%

3

2,765

594

21.5%

1,091

39.5%

1,361

49.2%

4

2,207

501

22.7%

949

43.0%

1,151

52.2%

5

1,999

482

24.1%

870

43.5%

1,091

54.6%

6

1,613

389

24.1%

725

44.9%

890

55.2%

7

1,446

396

27.4%

693

47.9%

820

56.7%

8

1,232

363

29.5%

603

48.9%

727

59.0%

9

941

263

27.9%

472

50.2%

560

59.5%

10

800

226

28.3%

400

50.0%

479

59.9%

11

697

190

27.3%

356

51.1%

435

62.4%

12

583

179

30.7%

298

51.1%

359

61.6%

13

429

134

31.2%

214

49.9%

260

60.6%

14

351

121

34.5%

182

51.9%

206

58.7%

15 +

1,442

497

34.5%

815

56.5%

942

65.3%

Total

35,790

7,363

20.6%

13,423

37.5%

16,496

46.1%

51

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

As shown in Appendix A, the three year conviction rate decreased between the FY 2011 12 and FY 2012
13 release cohorts for every combination of in prison SUDT and aftercare. The largest decrease was
observed among offenders who had no in prison SUDT and completed aftercare (11.0 percentage
points). Offenders in the FY 2011 12 release cohort who had no in prison SUDT and completed aftercare
had a three year conviction rate of 49.6 percent and offenders in the FY 2012 13 release cohort had a
rate of 38.6 percent. The three year conviction rate for offenders who received in prison SUDT and
completed aftercare also saw a large decrease: from 36.7 percent to 29.2 percent, a decrease of 7.5
percentage points. Data for offenders released in FY 2011 12 and FY 2012 13, based upon in prison
SUDT and aftercare are presented in Appendix A.
Table 22. Conviction Rates by Substance Use Disorder Treatment Participation

Substance Use Disorder Treatment Participation

Number
Released

One Year
Number
Conviction
Convicted
Rate

Two Year
Number
Conviction
Convicted
Rate

Three Year
Number
Conviction
Convicted
Rate

In Prison SUDT Participation
Compl eted Afterca re

339

25

7.4%

66

19.5%

99

29.2%

Some Afterca re

259

53

20.5%

117

45.2%

144

55.6%

2,673

530

19.8%

963

36.0%

1,200

44.9%

3,271

608

18.6%

1,146

35.0%

1,443

44.1%

Compl eted Afterca re

1,698

196

11.5%

475

28.0%

655

38.6%

Some Afterca re

1,861

392

21.1%

873

46.9%

1,094

58.8%

No Afterca re
Subtotal
No In Prison SUDT Participation

28,960

6,167

21.3%

10,929

37.7%

13,304

45.9%

Subtotal

No Afterca re

32,519

6,755

20.8%

12,277

37.8%

15,053

46.3%

Total

35,790

7,363

20.6%

13,423

37.5%

16,496

46.1%

53

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

Offenders who had an identified substance use treatment need, did not receive in prison SUDT, and
completed aftercare also had a lower conviction rate (43.5 percent or 359 offenders) than offenders
who had an identified substance use treatment need and did not receive in prison SUDT or aftercare
(54.2 percent or 7,499 offenders).
Table 23. Conviction Rates by Substance Use Disorder Treatment Participation and Substance Abuse
Treatment Need
Substance Use Disorder Treatment
Participation and Need

Number
Released

One Year
Number
Conviction
Convicted
Rate

Two Year
Number
Conviction
Convicted
Rate

Three Year
Number
Conviction
Convicted
Rate

In Prison SUDT Participation/Had SUDT Need
Compl eted Afterca re

208

17

8.2%

47

22.6%

70

33.7%

Some Afterca re

165

36

21.8%

77

46.7%

99

60.0%

1,780

397

22.3%

709

39.8%

877

49.3%

2,153

450

20.9%

833

38.7%

1,046

48.6%

826

107

13.0%

273

33.1%

359

43.5%

No Afterca re
Subtotal

No In Prison SUDT Participation/Had SUDT Need
Compl eted Afterca re
Some Afterca re
Subtotal

903

204

22.6%

448

49.6%

557

61.7%

13,825

3,578

25.9%

6,234

45.1%

7,499

54.2%

15,554

3,889

25.0%

6,955

44.7%

8,415

54.1%

18,083

No Afterca re

3,024

16.7%

5,635

31.2%

7,035

38.9%

35,790

7,363

20.6%

13,423

37.5%

16,496

46.1%

No Assessment/No SUDT Need Identified
Total

55

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

Appendix A
Conviction Rates by Fiscal Year and Offender Demographics and Characteristics
FY 2011 12
Number
Released

FY 2012 13
Number
Released

Number
Released
Difference

FY 2011 12
Number
Convicted

FY 2012 13
Number
Convicted

Number
Convicted
Difference

FY 2011 12
Three Year
Conviction
Rate

FY 2012 13
Three Year
Conviction
Rate

Three Year
Rate
Difference

74,875

35,790

(39,085)

40,644

16,496

(24,148)

54.3%

46.1%

(8.2)

Ma l e

67,953

33,137

(34,816)

37,406

15,498

(21,908)

55.0%

46.8%

(8.2)

Fema l e

6,922

2,653

(4,269)

3,238

998

(2,240)

46.8%

37.6%

(9.2)

(4.9)

Total
Gender

Age at Release
18 19

596

388

(208)

401

242

(159)

67.3%

62.4%

20 24

10,208

5,148

(5,060)

6,410

2,967

(3,443)

62.8%

57.6%

(5.2)

25 29

14,148

6,208

(7,940)

8,471

3,287

(5,184)

59.9%

52.9%

(7.0)

30 34

13,340

6,211

(7,129)

7,509

3,047

(4,462)

56.3%

49.1%

(7.2)

35 39

9,772

4,566

(5,206)

5,247

1,979

(3,268)

53.7%

43.3%

(10.4)

40 44

9,312

4,087

(5,225)

4,876

1,724

(3,152)

52.4%

42.2%

(10.2)

45 49

8,144

3,820

(4,324)

4,010

1,534

(2,476)

49.2%

40.2%

(9.0)

50 54

5,623

2,893

(2,730)

2,462

1,094

(1,368)

43.8%

37.8%

(6.0)

55 59

2,387

1,522

(865)

901

433

(468)

37.7%

28.4%

(9.3)

60 a nd over

1,345

947

(398)

357

189

(168)

26.5%

20.0%

(6.5)

Race/Ethnicity
828

359

(469)

475

198

(277)

57.4%

55.2%

(2.2)

Whi te

22,081

9,352

(12,729)

12,578

4,551

(8,027)

57.0%

48.7%

(8.3)

Bl a ck/Afri ca n Ameri ca n

19,037

9,335

(9,702)

10,419

4,435

(5,984)

54.7%

47.5%

(7.2)

Hi s pa ni c/La ti no

29,630

15,018

(14,612)

15,594

6,708

(8,886)

52.6%

44.7%

(7.9)

634

422

(212)

349

175

(174)

55.0%

41.5%

(13.5)

2,665

1,304

(1,361)

1,229

429

(800)

46.1%

32.9%

(13.2)

Ameri ca n Indi a n/Al a s ka n Na ti ve

As i a n/Pa ci fi c Is l a nder
Other
County of Release
Kern County

3,100

1,275

(1,825)

2,123

792

(1,331)

68.5%

62.1%

(6.4)

Sta ni s l a us County

1,424

656

(768)

880

367

(513)

61.8%

55.9%

(5.9)

Fres no County

2,991

1,215

(1,776)

1,700

640

(1,060)

56.8%

52.7%

(4.1)

Sa n Joa qui n County

1,815

767

(1,048)

1,084

387

(697)

59.7%

50.5%

(9.2)
(10.0)

Sa nta Cl a ra County

2,238

932

(1,306)

1,303

449

(854)

58.2%

48.2%

Sa n Berna rdi no County

6,625

3,053

(3,572)

3,488

1,448

(2,040)

52.6%

47.4%

(5.2)

Los Angel es County

19,517

11,478

(8,039)

10,305

5,389

(4,916)

52.8%

47.0%

(5.8)

Ri vers i de County

4,811

2,292

(2,519)

2,651

1,049

(1,602)

55.1%

45.8%

(9.3)

Ora nge County

4,910

2,067

(2,843)

2,752

921

(1,831)

56.0%

44.6%

(11.4)

Sa cra mento County

4,078

1,647

(2,431)

2,154

685

(1,469)

52.8%

41.6%

(11.2)

Sa n Di ego County

5,219

2,502

(2,717)

2,316

938

(1,378)

44.4%

37.5%

(6.9)

Al a meda County

2,569

882

(1,687)

1,236

308

(928)

48.1%

34.9%

(13.2)

Di rectl y Di s cha rged

796

630

(166)

470

148

(322)

59.0%

23.5%

(35.5)

Al l Other Counti es

14,782

6,394

(8,388)

8,652

2,975

(5,677)

58.5%

46.5%

(12.0)

(8.2)

Commitment Offense Category
Property Cri mes

24,107

9,037

(15,070)

15,166

4,947

(10,219)

62.9%

54.7%

Other Cri mes

9,379

5,287

(4,092)

4,973

2,641

(2,332)

53.0%

50.0%

(3.0)

Drug Cri mes

18,495

7,395

(11,100)

10,132

3,464

(6,668)

54.8%

46.8%

(8.0)

Cri mes Aga i ns t Pers ons

22,894

14,071

(8,823)

10,373

5,444

(4,929)

45.3%

38.7%

(6.6)

Determi na te Sentenci ng La w

63,867

27,544

(36,323)

35,063

13,024

(22,039)

54.9%

47.3%

(7.6)

Second Stri kers (Determi na te Sentenci ng La w)

10,649

7,754

(2,895)

5,570

3,452

(2,118)

52.3%

44.5%

(7.8)

359

492

133

11

20

9

3.1%

4.1%

1.0

No

67,658

32,477

(35,181)

37,819

15,584

(22,235)

55.9%

48.0%

(7.9)

Yes

7,217

3,313

(3,904)

2,825

912

(1,913)

39.1%

27.5%

(11.6)

Sentence Type

Li fers (Indetermi na te Sentenci ng La w)
Sex Registration Requirement

56

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

Appendix A
Conviction Rates by Fiscal Year and Offender Demographics and Characteristics
(continued)
FY 2011 12
Three Year
Conviction
Rate

FY 2012 13
Three Year
Conviction
Rate

Three Year
Rate
Difference

71.4%

67.0%

(4.4)

57.9%

63.4%

5.5

59.6%

(4.4)
(8.2)

FY 2011 12
Number
Released

FY 2012 13
Number
Released

Number
Released
Difference

FY 2011 12
Number
Convicted

FY 2012 13
Number
Convicted

Number
Convicted
Difference

3,837

1,293

(2,544)

2,741

866

(1,875)

38

41

3

22

26

4

CS Pos s es s i on

8,615

2,810

(5,805)

5,510

1,676

(3,834)

64.0%

Commitment Offense
Vehi cl e Theft
Es ca pe
Recei vi ng Stol en Property

2,901

822

(2,079)

1,967

490

(1,477)

67.8%

59.6%

Petty Theft Wi th Pri or

3,064

953

(2,111)

2,046

546

(1,500)

66.8%

57.3%

(9.5)

Pos s es s i on Wea pon

4,680

2,715

(1,965)

2,826

1,546

(1,280)

60.4%

56.9%

(3.5)

Burgl a ry 2nd

5,894

1,922

(3,972)

3,805

1,090

(2,715)

64.6%

56.7%

(7.9)

456

189

(267)

259

106

(153)

56.8%

56.1%

(0.7)

Other Offens es

2,744

1,498

(1,246)

1,495

754

(741)

54.5%

50.3%

(4.2)

Other As s a ul t/Ba ttery

6,357

3,925

(2,432)

3,448

1,958

(1,490)

54.2%

49.9%

(4.3)

Burgl a ry 1s t

3,107

2,363

(744)

1,704

1,177

(527)

54.8%

49.8%

(5.0)

Gra nd Theft

2,389

751

(1,638)

1,382

369

(1,013)

57.8%

49.1%

(8.7)

Other Property

996

308

(688)

597

151

(446)

59.9%

49.0%

(10.9)

Ma ri j. Pos s es s For Sa l e

717

206

(511)

331

97

(234)

46.2%

47.1%

0.9

Ars on

182

146

(36)

78

65

(13)

42.9%

44.5%

1.6

5,439

3,192

(2,247)

2,655

1,373

(1,282)

48.8%

43.0%

(5.8)
(5.5)

CS Other

As s a ul t w. Dea dl y Wea pon
Robbery

4,880

3,257

(1,623)

2,356

1,393

(963)

48.3%

42.8%

Forgery/Fra ud

1,919

625

(1,294)

924

258

(666)

48.2%

41.3%

(6.9)

Other Sex

2,188

923

(1,265)

1,038

373

(665)

47.4%

40.4%

(7.0)

CS Pos s es s i on For Sa l e

6,111

2,889

(3,222)

2,827

1,122

(1,705)

46.3%

38.8%

(7.5)

CS Sa l es

1,971

1,064

(907)

942

388

(554)

47.8%

36.5%

(11.3)
(13.0)

Ma ri jua na Sa l e
Dri vi ng Under Infl uence
Ma ns l a ughter

327

130

(197)

161

47

(114)

49.2%

36.2%

1,735

887

(848)

552

250

(302)

31.8%

28.2%

(3.6)

390

289

(101)

98

67

(31)

25.1%

23.2%

(1.9)

Penetra ti on Wi th Object

125

75

(50)

26

17

(9)

20.8%

22.7%

1.9

Ki dna ppi ng

196

176

(20)

62

37

(25)

31.6%

21.0%

(10.6)

CS Ma nufa cturi ng

142

72

(70)

38

15

(23)

26.8%

20.8%

(6.0)

Attempted Murder 2nd

220

204

(16)

76

42

(34)

34.5%

20.6%

(13.9)

Ra pe

415

251

(164)

116

44

(72)

28.0%

17.5%

(10.5)

Ora l Copul a ti on

148

81

(67)

44

13

(31)

29.7%

16.0%

(13.7)

182

144

(38)

32

17

(15)

17.6%

11.8%

(5.8)

1,877

1,073

(804)

377

87

(290)

20.1%

8.1%

(12.0)

Murder 1s t

83

120

37

3

6

3

3.6%

5.0%

1.4

Murder 2nd

326

308

(18)

30

12

(18)

9.2%

3.9%

(5.3)

Vehi cul a r Ma ns l a ughter
Lewd Act Wi th Chi l d

Attempted Murder 1s t

26

32

6

3

1

(2)

N/A

3.1%

N/A

Ha s hi s h Pos s es s i on

46

11

(35)

31

7

(24)

67.4%

N/A

N/A

Ma ri jua na Other

110

24

(86)

33

6

(27)

30.0%

N/A

N/A

Sodomy

42

21

(21)

9

4

(5)

21.4%

N/A

N/A

Compl eted Afterca re

460

339

(121)

169

99

(70)

36.7%

29.2%

(7.5)

Some Afterca re

622

259

(363)

349

144

(205)

56.1%

55.6%

(0.5)

2,750

2,673

(77)

1,429

1,200

(229)

52.0%

44.9%

(7.1)

Substance Use Disorder Treatment Participation
In Prison SUDT Participation

No Afterca re
No In Prison SUDT Participation
Compl eted Afterca re

2,893

1,698

(1,195)

1,436

655

(781)

49.6%

38.6%

(11.0)

Some Afterca re

4,221

1,861

(2,360)

2,747

1,094

(1,653)

65.1%

58.8%

(6.3)

No Afterca re

63,929

28,960

(34,969)

34,514

13,304

(21,210)

54.0%

45.9%

(8.1)

57

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

Appendix A
Conviction Rates by Fiscal Year and Offender Demographics and Characteristics
(continued)
FY 2011 12
Number
Released

FY 2012 13
Number
Released

Number
Released
Difference

FY 2011 12
Number
Convicted

FY 2012 13
Number
Convicted

Number
Convicted
Difference

FY 2011 12
Three Year
Conviction
Rate

FY 2012 13
Three Year
Conviction
Rate

Three Year
Rate
Difference

Serious and/or Violent Offense
Seri ous

11,108

7,343

(3,765)

5,712

3,419

(2,293)

51.4%

46.6%

(4.8)

Vi ol ent

9,324

6,626

(2,698)

3,383

1,929

(1,454)

36.3%

29.1%

(7.2)

Non Seri ous /Non Vi ol ent

54,443

21,821

(32,622)

31,549

11,148

(20,401)

57.9%

51.1%

(6.8)

Mental Health Designation
134

36

(98)

80

19

(61)

59.7%

52.8%

(6.9)

Enha nced Outpa ti ent Progra m

2,126

914

(1,212)

1,256

473

(783)

59.1%

51.8%

(7.3)

Correcti ona l Cl i ni ca l Ca s e Ma na gement Sys tem

11,729

5,728

(6,001)

6,802

2,915

(3,887)

58.0%

50.9%

(7.1)

N/A

19

N/A

N/A

7

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

60,880

29,093

(31,787)

32,505

13,082

(19,423)

53.4%

45.0%

(8.4)

Menta l Hea l th Cri s i s Bed

Inpa ti ent
No Menta l Hea l th Des i gna ti on
CSRA Risk Score
Hi gh

41,374

15,931

(25,443)

27,877

9,948

(17,929)

67.4%

62.4%

(5.0)

Modera te

19,606

10,561

(9,045)

9,320

4,622

(4,698)

47.5%

43.8%

(3.7)

Low

13,873

9,296

(4,577)

3,443

1,925

(1,518)

24.8%

20.7%

(4.1)

N/A

22

2

(20)

4

1

(3)

N/A

N/A

N/A

(9.3)

Length of Stay
0 6 Months

26,479

3,554

(22,925)

16,319

1,859

(14,460)

61.6%

52.3%

7 12 Months

21,983

7,905

(14,078)

12,456

4,236

(8,220)

56.7%

53.6%

(3.1)

13 18 Months

8,127

5,865

(2,262)

4,305

3,069

(1,236)

53.0%

52.3%

(0.7)
0.5

19 24 Months

5,124

4,706

(418)

2,525

2,343

(182)

49.3%

49.8%

2 3 Yea rs

5,068

4,804

(264)

2,244

2,187

(57)

44.3%

45.5%

1.2

3 4 Yea rs

2,455

2,398

(57)

1,043

997

(46)

42.5%

41.6%

(0.9)
(3.2)

4 5 Yea rs

1,568

1,604

36

575

537

(38)

36.7%

33.5%

5 10 Yea rs

2,702

2,757

55

937

849

(88)

34.7%

30.8%

(3.9)

10 15 Yea rs

870

1,126

256

199

255

56

22.9%

22.6%

(0.3)

15+ Yea rs

499

1,071

572

41

164

123

8.2%

15.3%

7.1

1

21,626

14,945

(6,681)

8,302

5,240

(3,062)

38.4%

35.1%

(3.3)

2

9,477

4,340

(5,137)

4,833

1,975

(2,858)

51.0%

45.5%

(5.5)
(7.7)

Number of CDCR Stays Ever

3

6,910

2,765

(4,145)

3,935

1,361

(2,574)

56.9%

49.2%

4

5,617

2,207

(3,410)

3,261

1,151

(2,110)

58.1%

52.2%

(5.9)

5

4,733

1,999

(2,734)

2,898

1,091

(1,807)

61.2%

54.6%

(6.6)

6

4,178

1,613

(2,565)

2,593

890

(1,703)

62.1%

55.2%

(6.9)

7

3,485

1,446

(2,039)

2,220

820

(1,400)

63.7%

56.7%

(7.0)

8

3,058

1,232

(1,826)

1,980

727

(1,253)

64.7%

59.0%

(5.7)

9

2,520

941

(1,579)

1,643

560

(1,083)

65.2%

59.5%

(5.7)

10

2,139

800

(1,339)

1,408

479

(929)

65.8%

59.9%

(5.9)

11

1,840

697

(1,143)

1,217

435

(782)

66.1%

62.4%

(3.7)

12

1,548

583

(965)

1,020

359

(661)

65.9%

61.6%

(4.3)

13

1,319

429

(890)

872

260

(612)

66.1%

60.6%

(5.5)

14

1,066

351

(715)

724

206

(518)

67.9%

58.7%

(9.2)

15 +

5,359

1,442

(3,917)

3,738

942

(2,796)

69.8%

65.3%

(4.5)

58

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

Appendix B
Conviction Rates by County of Release
One Year
Number Conviction
Returned
Rate

Two Year
Number Conviction
Returned
Rate

Three Year
Number Conviction
Returned
Rate

County of Release

Number
Released

Al a meda County

882

118

13.4%

239

27.1%

308

34.9%

Al pi ne County

0

0

N/A

0

N/A

0

N/A

Ama dor County

23

2

N/A

7

N/A

9

N/A

331

80

24.2%

135

40.8%

162

48.9%

Ca l a vera s County

Butte County

23

4

N/A

7

N/A

9

N/A

Col us a County

10

5

N/A

7

N/A

7

N/A

351

49

14.0%

102

29.1%

138

39.3%

Contra Cos ta County
Del Norte County

28

3

N/A

10

N/A

11

N/A

El Dora do County

96

21

21.9%

39

40.6%

46

47.9%

1,215

250

20.6%

510

42.0%

640

52.7%

22

3

N/A

5

N/A

7

N/A

Fres no County
Gl enn County
Humbol dt County

161

43

26.7%

73

45.3%

84

52.2%

Imperi a l County

110

27

24.5%

45

40.9%

54

49.1%

Inyo County

6

1

N/A

1

N/A

3

N/A

Kern County

1,275

424

33.3%

687

53.9%

792

62.1%

Ki ngs County

271

52

19.2%

108

39.9%

130

48.0%

La ke County

78

15

19.2%

29

37.2%

35

44.9%

La s s en County

27

5

N/A

9

N/A

13

N/A

11,478

2,537

22.1%

4,438

38.7%

5,389

47.0%

161

25

15.5%

54

33.5%

69

42.9%

47

5

10.6%

8

17.0%

17

36.2%

8

2

N/A

2

N/A

3

N/A

79

20

25.3%

32

40.5%

44

55.7%

Los Angel es County
Ma dera County
Ma ri n County
Ma ri pos a County
Mendoci no County

231

23

10.0%

59

25.5%

72

31.2%

Modoc County

Merced County

8

4

N/A

4

N/A

5

N/A

Mono County

2

1

N/A

1

N/A

1

N/A

387

95

24.5%

174

45.0%

205

53.0%

Monterey County
Na pa County

87

16

18.4%

32

36.8%

42

48.3%

Neva da County

28

5

N/A

9

N/A

11

N/A

Ora nge County

2,067

451

21.8%

762

36.9%

921

44.6%

161

25

15.5%

54

33.5%

65

40.4%

Pl a cer County
Pl uma s County
Ri vers i de County

9

1

N/A

1

N/A

1

N/A

2,292

470

20.5%

848

37.0%

1,049

45.8%

59

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

Appendix B
Conviction Rates by County of Release (continued)

County of Release
Sa cra mento County

Number
Released

One Year
Number Conviction
Returned
Rate

Two Year
Number Conviction
Returned
Rate

Three Year
Number Conviction
Returned
Rate

1,647

288

17.5%

567

34.4%

685

41.6%

38

8

21.1%

15

39.5%

18

47.4%

Sa n Berna rdi no County

3,053

601

19.7%

1,183

38.7%

1,448

47.4%

Sa n Di ego County

2,502

361

14.4%

719

28.7%

938

37.5%

Sa n Fra nci s co County

300

43

14.3%

77

25.7%

97

32.3%

Sa n Joa qui n County

767

175

22.8%

324

42.2%

387

50.5%

Sa n Beni to County

Sa n Lui s Obi s po County

187

40

21.4%

58

31.0%

79

42.2%

Sa n Ma teo County

280

48

17.1%

97

34.6%

118

42.1%

Sa nta Ba rba ra County

289

77

26.6%

122

42.2%

160

55.4%

Sa nta Cl a ra County

932

183

19.6%

356

38.2%

449

48.2%

Sa nta Cruz County
Sha s ta County
Si erra County
Si s ki you County

98

31

31.6%

51

52.0%

58

59.2%

303

48

15.8%

109

36.0%

160

52.8%

4

0

N/A

1

N/A

1

N/A

42

5

11.9%

15

35.7%

22

52.4%

Sol a no County

331

72

21.8%

129

39.0%

155

46.8%

Sonoma County

266

63

23.7%

96

36.1%

117

44.0%

Sta ni s l a us County

656

162

24.7%

290

44.2%

367

55.9%

73

11

15.1%

25

34.2%

31

42.5%

Sutter County

119

29

24.4%

50

42.0%

57

47.9%

Tri ni ty County

Teha ma County

9

0

N/A

2

N/A

2

N/A

Tul a re County

510

126

24.7%

220

43.1%

267

52.4%

36

4

11.1%

13

36.1%

16

44.4%

Tuol umne County
Ventura County

441

109

24.7%

178

40.4%

221

50.1%

Yol o County

185

29

15.7%

62

33.5%

75

40.5%

Yuba County

138

29

21.0%

65

47.1%

78

56.5%

Di rectl y Di s cha rged

630

39

6.2%

108

17.1%

148

23.5%

35,790

7,363

20.6%

13,423

37.5%

16,496

46.1%

Total

60

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

Appendix B
Three Year Conviction Rate by County of Release

61

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

Appendix C
Primary and Supplemental Recidivism Rates: Arrests, Convictions, and Returns to Prison
The below figures and tables present supplemental recidivism measures (arrests and returns to prison),
as well as the primary measure of recidivism (convictions), in one , two , and three year intervals (when
available) for adult offenders released from CDCR adult institutions between FY 2002 03 and FY 2014
15. One year rates are provided for offenders released from CDCR in FY 2002 03 through FY 2014 15
and provide the most years of comparative data.29 The one year rates are followed by two year and
three year supplemental recidivism rates. Two year rates are provided for offenders released from
CDCR between FY 2002 03 and FY 2013 14 and three year rates are provided for offenders released
between FY 2002 03 and FY 2012 13.30 Although the three year rates provide the most comprehensive
picture of reoffending among CDCR offenders, one and two year rates present the most recent data
available and offer insight into trends associated with future three year rates.

Arrests
Following multiple years of growth in the arrest rate, the three year rate decreased 8.6 percentage
points (from 75.3 percent to 66.7 percent) between the FY 2011 12 and FY 2012 13 release cohorts,
which are the most recent cohorts for which three year data is available. The two year arrest rate for
the FY 2013 14 release cohort (61.1 percent) and the one year arrest rate for the FY 2014 15 release
cohort (50.2 percent) indicated the three year arrest rate will remain relatively stable over the next two
fiscal years of releases. The three year arrest rate for the FY 2012 13 release cohort was the lowest
arrest rate observed since CDCR began reporting these data with the FY 2002 03 release cohort. The
three year arrest rate peaked with the FY 2005 06 release cohort at 77.2 percent.

Convictions
Recent conviction rates followed a similar pattern to the three year arrest rate: following growth
between the FY 2008 09 and FY 2011 12 release cohorts, the three year conviction rate decreased 8.2
percentage points between the FY 2011 12 and FY 2012 13 release cohorts. Again, the two year
conviction rate for the FY 2013 14 release cohort (35.7 percent) and the one year rate for the FY 2014
15 release cohort (19.7 percent) indicated the conviction rate will remain stable over the next two fiscal
years of releases. The three year conviction rate for the FY 2012 13 release cohort of 46.1 percent is 1.6
percentage points lower than the lowest conviction rate observed (47.7 percent) with the release of the
FY 2002 03 release cohort when CDCR began reporting these data. The three year conviction rate
peaked with the FY 2011 12 release cohort at 54.3 percent.
29

The arrest, conviction, and return to prison data contained in these figures and charts were extracted in October 2016 to minimize the
effects of the time lag of data entry into the State’s system.
30
Supplemental recidivism rates are “frozen” at three years, meaning the three year follow up period is complete and no further analyses are
performed. Reported one year and two year rates may fluctuate slightly, as the 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 processing.

62

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

Appendix C
Primary and Supplemental Recidivism Rates: Arrests, Convictions, and Returns to Prison
(continued)32
Arrest Rates for the Fiscal Year 2002 03 through Fiscal Year 2014 15 Release Cohorts

Fiscal Year*

Number
Released

One Year
Number
Arrest
Arrested
Rate

Two Year
Number
Arrest
Arrested
Rate

Three Year
Number
Arrest
Arrested
Rate

2002 03

99,482

55,204

55.5%

69,449

69.8%

75,765

2003 04

99,635

56,127

56.3%

70,070

70.3%

76,135

76.2%
76.4%

2004 05

103,647

59,703

57.6%

73,881

71.3%

79,819

77.0%

2005 06

105,974

62,331

58.8%

76,079

71.8%

81,786

77.2%

2006 07

112,665

65,369

58.0%

79,893

70.9%

86,330

76.6%

2007 08

113,888

64,981

57.1%

79,978

70.2%

86,309

75.8%

2008 09

110,356

63,193

57.3%

77,412

70.1%

83,080

75.3%

2009 10

103,867

59,159

57.0%

71,837

69.2%

77,495

74.6%

2010 11

94,888

53,911

56.8%

66,399

70.0%

71,284

75.1%

2011 12

74,875

44,236

59.1%

52,829

70.6%

56,371

75.3%

2012 13

35,790

18,165

50.8%

22,184

62.0%

23,885

66.7%

2013 14

34,202

17,190

50.3%

20,901

61.1%

N/A

N/A

2014 15

40,112

20,141

50.2%

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Conviction Rates for the Fiscal Year 2002 03 through Fiscal Year 2014 15 Release Cohorts

Fiscal Year
2002 03

Number
Released
99,482

One Year
Number
Conviction
Convicted
Rate
19,643

19.7%

Two Year
Number
Conviction
Convicted
Rate
36,087

36.3%

Three Year
Number
Conviction
Convicted
Rate
47,443

47.7%

2003 04

99,635

21,509

21.6%

37,881

38.0%

48,350

48.5%

2004 05

103,647

23,464

22.6%

40,022

38.6%

51,026

49.2%

2005 06

105,974

23,428

22.1%

40,635

38.3%

51,650

48.7%

2006 07

112,665

26,657

23.7%

46,106

40.9%

57,980

51.5%

2007 08

113,888

25,233

22.2%

44,164

38.8%

56,525

49.6%

2008 09

110,356

23,831

21.6%

42,181

38.2%

54,175

49.1%

2009 10

103,867

22,410

21.6%

39,908

38.4%

51,456

49.5%

2010 11

94,888

20,403

21.5%

37,710

39.7%

48,689

51.3%

2011 12

74,875

18,894

25.2%

32,746

43.7%

40,644

54.3%

2012 13

35,790

7,363

20.6%

13,423

37.5%

16,496

46.1%

2013 14

34,202

6,956

20.3%

12,216

35.7%

N/A

N/A

2014 15

40,112

7,893

19.7%

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

32

Arrest and conviction data only include offenders with an automated Department of Justice rap sheet. Return to prison data include all
releases from CDCR adult institutions, regardless of having an automated Department of Justice rap sheet. Fiscal years without enough follow
up time to calculate a rate are reported as N/A.

66

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

Return to Prison Rates for the Fiscal Year 2002 03 through Fiscal Year 2014 15 Release Cohorts

Fiscal Year

Number
Released

One Year
Number
Return
Returned
Rate

Two Year
Number
Return
Returned
Rate

Three Year
Number
Return
Returned
Rate

2002 03

103,934

49,924

48.0%

63,415

61.0%

68,810

66.2%

2003 04

103,296

47,423

45.9%

61,788

59.8%

67,734

65.6%

2004 05

106,920

49,761

46.5%

65,559

61.3%

71,444

66.8%

2005 06

108,662

53,330

49.1%

67,958

62.5%

73,350

67.5%

2006 07

115,254

55,167

47.9%

69,691

60.5%

75,018

65.1%

2007 08

116,015

55,049

47.4%

68,643

59.2%

73,885

63.7%

2008 09

112,877

51,010

45.2%

64,244

56.9%

68,803

61.0%

2009 10

104,981

44,104

42.0%

54,713

52.1%

57,022

54.3%

2010 11

95,690

34,810

36.4%

39,331

41.1%

42,661

44.6%

2011 12

75,733

7,456

9.8%

13,843

18.3%

18,908

25.0%

2012 13

36,527

2,435

6.7%

5,937

16.3%

8,110

22.2%

2013 14

34,641

2,354

6.8%

5,339

15.4%

N/A

N/A

2014 15

40,394

2,445

6.1%

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

67

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

Appendix D
Type of Arrest
The below table shows the type of arrest for the FY 2011 12 and FY 2012 13 release cohorts. Data
represent the first arrest and only the most serious offense in the arrest cycle is presented. At the time
of this report, the type of arrest for some offenders was unknown.
Type of Arrest for Offenders Released in Fiscal Year 2011 12 and Fiscal Year 2012 13
FY 2011 12
Number

Type of Arrest

Percent

FY 2012 13
Number

Percent

No Arrest

18,504

24.7%

11,905

33.3%

All Felonies

24,246

32.4%

9,725

27.2%

Fel ony Drug/Al cohol Cri mes

8,039

10.7%

3,278

9.2%

Fel ony Property Cri mes

6,771

9.0%

2,490

7.0%

Fel ony Cri mes Aga i ns t Pers ons

5,786

7.7%

2,656

7.4%

Fel ony Other Cri mes

3,650

4.9%

1,301

3.6%

14,692

19.6%

5,030

14.1%

Mi s demea nor Drug/Al cohol Cri mes

6,057

8.1%

2,483

6.9%

Mi s demea nor Other Cri mes

3,287

4.4%

386

1.1%

Mi s demea nor Cri mes Aga i ns t Pers ons

3,180

4.2%

1,267

3.5%

Mi s demea nor Property Cri mes

2,168

2.9%

894

2.5%

16,957

22.6%

7,702

21.5%

All Misdemeanors

Supervision Violations
Unknown

476

0.6%

1,428

4.0%

74,875

Total

100.0%

35,790

100.0%

Of the 74,875 offenders in the FY 2011 12 release cohort, 24.7 percent (18,504 offenders) had no arrests
and of the 35,790 offenders in the FY 2012 13 release cohort, 33.3 percent (11,905 offenders) had no
arrests during the three year follow up period, an increase of 8.6 percentage points. Of the 74,875
offenders in the FY 2011 12 release cohort, 32.4 percent (24,246 offenders) were arrested for felonies,
19.6 percent (14,692 offenders) were arrested for misdemeanors, and 22.6 percent (16,957 offenders)
were arrested for supervision violations. A small number of offenders (476 offenders) had an unknown
arrest reason. Of the 35,790 offenders in the FY 2012 13 release cohort, 27.2 percent (9,725 offenders)
were arrested for felonies, 14.1 percent (5,030 offenders) were arrested for misdemeanors, and 21.5
percent (7,702 offenders) were arrested for supervision violations. A total of 1,428 offenders had an
unknown arrest reason.
The percentage of offenders arrested for felonies decreased by 5.2 percentage points between the FY
2011 12 and FY 2012 13 release cohorts (32.4 percent and 27.2 percent, respectively), while the
percentage of offenders arrested for misdemeanors decreased 5.5 percentage points (19.6 percent and
14.1 percent, respectively). Supervision violations decreased 1.1 percentage points between the two
cohorts (22.6 percent and 21.5 percent, respectively).
68

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

The percentage of offenders arrested for each type of felony and misdemeanor decreased between the
FY 2011 12 and FY 2012 13 release cohorts. Other misdemeanor crimes saw the largest decrease at 3.3
percentage points (from 4.4 percent to 1.1 percent), followed by felony property crimes with a 2.0
percentage point decrease (from 9.0 percent to 7.0 percent).

69

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

Appendix E
Type of Return to Prison
Returns to prison is a supplemental measure of recidivism that allows for comparisons with prior reports
and provides a mechanism to better understand Realignment’s impact on the types of offenses for
which offenders are returned to prison after their release. The type of conviction is discussed in detail in
the Offender Outcomes and Type of Conviction section of this report. Return to prison rates dating back
to the FY 2002 03 release cohort are provided in Appendix C.
Three Year Outcomes for the Fiscal Year 2012 13 Release Cohort

Of the 36,527 offenders released in FY 2012 13, 22.2 percent (8,110 offenders) were returned to prison
within three years of their release. The majority of the cohort (77.8 percent or 28,417 offenders) did not
return to prison during the three year follow up period. The three year return to prison rate of 22.2
percent was a 2.8 percentage point decrease from the FY 2011 12 release cohort’s three year return to
prison rate of 25.0 percent.
The below table shows the three year return to prison rate for the FY 2008 09 release cohort through
the FY 2012 13 release cohort. Realignment was operational at some point during the release period
(spanning a single fiscal year) or the three year follow up period for each of these cohorts. The FY 2012
13 release cohort is the only cohort to date where Realignment was operational during the release
period (July 1, 2012 – June 30, 2013), as well as the full three year follow up period.
Between the FY 2008 09 and FY 2009 10 release cohorts, the three year return to prison rate decreased
6.7 percentage points (from 61.0 percent to 54.3 percent). Between the FY 2009 10 and FY 2010 11
release cohort, the three year return to prison rate decreased 9.7 percentage points, from 54.3 percent
70

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

to 44.6 percent. The most drastic decrease occurred between the FY 2010 11 and FY 2011 12 release
cohorts at 19.6 percentage points (from 44.6 percent to 25 percent). Realignment became operational
during the period in which FY 2011 12 offenders were being released from prison and for most
offenders, Realignment was operational during their three year follow up period, meaning it had
substantial impacts on parole violations and the return to prison rate. The three year return to prison
rate decreased 2.8 percentage points between the FY 2011 12 and FY 2012 13 release cohorts,
indicating the three year return to prison rate was entering a period of stability.
Three Year Return to Prison Rates for the Fiscal Year 2008 09 through Fiscal Year 2012 13 Release
Cohorts
FY 2008 09

FY 2009 10

FY 2010 11

FY 2011 12

FY 2012 13

Released

Returned

Rate

Released

Returned

Rate

Released

Returned

Rate

Released

Returned

Rate

Released

112,877

68,803

61 0%

104,981

57,022

54.3%

95,690

42,661

44.6%

75,733

18,908

25 0%

36,527

Returned
8,110

The below table shows the type of return for offenders in the FY 2008 09 through FY 2012 13 release
cohorts. The table also shows the number of offenders who were released from prison and did not
return during the three year follow up period. As the three year return to prison rate decreased with
each fiscal year, the rate of offenders who completed their three year follow up period without
returning to prison increased.
Analysis of each of the five cohorts impacted by Realignment, showed relative stability between the
percentages of each cohort returned for crimes against persons, property crimes, drug crimes, and other
crimes. As intended under Realignment, parole violations saw the most substantial decreases across the
five release cohorts. Over 40 percent (42.3 percent) of the offenders released in FY 2008 09 were
returned to prison for parole violations. The percentage of offenders returned for parole violations
decreased 12.0 percentage points from 42.3 percent to 30.3 percent with the FY 2010 11 release cohort
and another 26.2 percentage points from 30.3 percent to 4.1 percent with the FY 2011 12 release
cohort. Only eight offenders in the FY 2012 13 release cohort were returned for parole violations.
Among the other types of returns presented, crimes against persons was the only return type that
consistently increased across all five release cohorts. Over three percent (3.5 percent) of the FY 2008 09
release cohort returned for crimes against persons, while 6.9 percent of the FY 2011 12 and FY 2012 13
release cohorts returned for crimes against persons. Slight increases in returns to prison for crimes
against persons were expected, as these crimes tend to be more serious and violent than other crimes
and post Realignment, only serious, violent, and sex registrant offenders are sentenced to prison, while
non serious, non violent, and non sex registrant offenders are sentenced to county jail. Returns to
prison for property crimes, drug crimes, and other crimes fluctuated (some decreases and increases)
over the five release cohorts. Rates for property crimes and drug crimes are expected to decline with
future release cohorts, due to the impacts of Proposition 47, which was passed in November 2014 and
mandates a misdemeanor sentence instead of a felony sentence for some property and drug offenses.

71

Rate
22.2%

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

Type of Return for the Fiscal Year 2008 09 through Fiscal Year 2012 13 Release Cohorts
FY 2008 09
Type of Return
Pa rol e Vi ol a ti ons

Number

Percent

FY 2009 10
Number

FY 2010 11

Percent

Number

Percent

FY 2011 12
Number

Percent

FY 2012 13
Number

Percent

47,793

42.3%

39,747

37.9%

29,028

30.3%

3,126

4.1%

8

0.0%

Cri mes Aga i ns t Pers ons

3,925

3.5%

3,771

3.6%

3,834

4.0%

5,247

6.9%

2,527

6.9%

Property Cri mes

8,055

7.1%

6,541

6.2%

4,520

4.7%

4,238

5.6%

2,249

6.2%

Drug Crimes

6,299

5.6%

4,730

4.5%

3,279

3.4%

3,278

4.3%

1,815

5.0%

Other Crimes
No Return to Pris on
Total

2,731

2.4%

2,233

2.1%

2,000

2.1%

3,019

4.0%

1,511

4.1%

44,074

39.0%

47,959

45.7%

53,029

55.4%

56,825

75.0%

28,417

77.8%

112,877

100.0%

104,981

100.0%

95,690

100.0%

75,733

100.0%

36,527

100.0%

72

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

Appendix F
Definitions of Key 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 conviction 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
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 1977, 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.
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).

73

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

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 1977. After the implementation of Determinate Sentencing, only individuals with
life sentences and third strikers are considered “indeterminately” sentenced, since the parole
board determines their release.
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 Fiscal Year 2008 09 are not
readily available for some inmates included in this report.
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.
Recidivism
Conviction of a new felony or misdemeanor committed within three years of release from custody
or committed within three years of placement on supervision for a previous criminal conviction.

74

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

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 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.
Return to Prison
An individual convicted of a felony and incarcerated in a CDCR adult institution who was released
to parole, discharged after being paroled, or directly discharged during Fiscal Year 2011 12 and
subsequently returned to prison within three years of their release date.
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.
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 Offense
Violent felony offenses are specified in Penal Code section 667.5(c).

75

2017 Outcome Evaluation Report

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Division of Internal Oversight and Research
Office of Research
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/adult research branch

76