California’s 2011 Public Safety Realignment created an unprecedented policy experiment by transferring the authority over lower level felony offenders from the state correctional system to 58 county jail and probation systems. Realignment provides a unique opportunity to examine the ways that correctional policy change can influence recidivism patterns. We examine two questions about policy change and recidivism: “Did realignment affect change in statewide recidivism patterns?” and “Does county-level variation in implementation strategies help account for differences in recidivism across counties?” We find that statewide recidivism rates actually increased somewhat after realignment. However, we also find that offenders released to counties that prioritized reentry services in their implementation of realignment had better post-realignment recidivism outcomes than offenders released to counties that prioritized traditional enforcement methods. We conclude by considering additional steps needed to understand the links between policy change and recidivism outcomes.
BallD. (2012). Tough on crime (on the state’s dime): How violent crime does not drive California counties’ incarceration rates—And why it should. Georgia State University Law Review, 28, 987-1083.
2.
BarkerV. (2009). The politics of imprisonment: How the democratic process shapes the way America punishes offenders. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
3.
BirdM.GrattetR. (2014). Do local realignment policies affect recidivism?San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
4.
BirdM.HayesJ. (2013). Funding public safety realignment. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
5.
BontaD. A.AndrewsJ. (2010). Psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). New Providence, NJ: Anderson.
6.
BromleyP.PowellW. (2012). From smoke and mirrors to walking the talk: Decoupling in the contemporary world. The Academy of Management Annals, 6, 483-530.
7.
CampbellM. (2011). Politics, prisons, and law enforcement: An examination of the emergence of “law and order” politics in Texas. Law & Society Review, 45, 631-665.
8.
DurlaufS. N.NaginD. S. (2011). Imprisonment and crime: Can both be reduced?Criminology & Public Policy, 10, 13-54.
9.
GendreauP.LittleT.GogginG. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works. Criminology, 34, 575-608.
10.
GerlingerJ.TurnerS. F. (2014). California’s public safety realignment: Correctional policy based on stakes rather than risk. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 26 : 805-827.
11.
GrattetR.HayesJ. (2014). California’s changing prison population. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California.
12.
GrattetR.JennessV. (2008). Transforming symbolic law into organizational action: Hate crime policy and law enforcement practice. Social Forces, 87, 501-527.
13.
GrattetR.LinJ.PetersiliaJ. (2011). Supervision regimes, risk, and official reactions to parolee deviance. Criminology, 49, 371-399.
14.
GrattetR.PetersiliaJ.LinJ. (2008). Parole violations and revocations in California. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
15.
HaganJ.HewittJ. D.AlwinD. F. (1979). Ceremonial justice: Crime and punishment in a loosely coupled system. Social Forces, 58, 506-626.
16.
HawkenA.KleimanM. (2012). Managing drug involved probationers with swift and certain sanctions: Evaluating Hawaii’s HOPE. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
17.
HellevikO. (2009). Linear versus logistic regression when the dependent variable is a dichotomy. Quality & Quantity, 43, 59-74.
18.
JannettaJ. (2013). The prison population decline is a California story. MetroTrends Blog. Retrieved from blog.metrotrends.org
19.
KleimanM. A. R. (2009). When brute force fails: How to have less crime and less punishment. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
20.
LofstromM.RaphaelS. (2013a). Impact of realignment on county jail populations. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
21.
LofstromM.RaphaelS. (2013b). Impacts of realignment on crime. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
22.
LofstromM.RaphaelS.GrattetR. (2014). Public safety realignment and recidivism. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
23.
LynchM. (2009). Sunbelt justice: Arizona and the transformation of American punishment. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
24.
LynchM. (2011). Mass incarceration, legal change, and locale: Understanding and remediating American penal overindulgence. Criminology & Public Policy, 10, 673-698.
25.
MacKenzieD. L. (2006). What works in corrections: Reducing the criminal activities of offenders and delinquents. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
26.
MaltzM. D. (1984). Recidivism. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
27.
MearsD. P. (2010). American criminal justice policy: An evaluation approach to increasing accountability and effectiveness. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
28.
NaginD. S.CullenF. T.JonsonC. L. (2009). Imprisonment and reoffending. Crime and Justice, 38, 115-200.
29.
PageJ. (2011). The toughest beat: Politics, punishment, and the prison officers union in California. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
30.
PetersiliaJ. (2014). Voices from the field: How California stakeholders view public safety realignment. Stanford, CA: Stanford Criminal Justice Center.
31.
PetersiliaJ.TurnerS. (1993). Intensive probation and parole. Crime and Justice, 17, 281-335.
32.
SchlangerM. (2013). Plata v. Brown and realignment: Jails, prisons, courts, and politics. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 48, 165-215.
33.
SchoenfeldH. (2010). Mass incarceration and the paradox of prison conditions litigation. Law & Society Review, 44, 731-768.
34.
StuntzW. J. (2011). The collapse of American criminal justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
35.
TaxmanF. S. (2008). No illusions: Offender and organizational change in Maryland’s proactive community supervision efforts. Criminology & Public Policy, 7, 275-302.
36.
Taylor-NicholsonE.RussiA. (2012). Putting California’s public safety realignment in context: An overview of fiscal decentralization. Berkeley, CA: The Chief Justice Earl Warrant Institute on Law and Social Policy.
37.
WilsonJ. Q.PetersiliaJ. (Eds.). (2002). Crime: Public policies for crime control. San Francisco, CA. ICS Press.
38.
ZimringF. E. (2011). The city that became safe: What New York teaches about urban crime and its control. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
