The 2011 Realignment of Adult Felony Populations: Results and Key Takeaways

analysis full 2026-27 BUDGET The 2011 Realignment of Adult Felony Populations: Results and Key Takeaways GABRIEL PETEK | LEGISLATIVE ANALYST JUNE 2026 www.lao.ca.gov 1 analysis full AN LAO REPORT 2 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full AN LAO REPORT Executive Summary In 2011, California shifted responsibility for incarcerating and supervising certain adult felony populations from the state to counties. The state also shifted a portion of tax revenues to counties to cover the additional costs. These changes were part of a larger shift of responsibilities known as the 2011 realignment. Pursuant to Chapter 96 of 2023 (AB 1080, Ta), this report provides information on how various aspects of the realignment of adult felony populations have been implemented and evaluates the results. Looking Back at 2011 Realignment Implementation and Outcomes Prison Sentences Decreased and Jail Sentences Increased, Driven Primarily by Property and Drug Felonies. After the 2011 realignment, there was a distinct shift of sentences for property and drug crimes from state prison to county jail. Sentences for violent crimes were largely unaffected. Increase in the Jail Population Was Smaller Than the Decrease in the Prison Population. Within one year of realignment taking effect, the jail population increased by about 8,500 people. However, the decrease in the prison population was about three times larger. The combined state and county criminal justice population—including those under community supervision— decreased by about 36,900 people (6 percent) between 2010 and 2012 and has generally continued to decline over the last decade primarily due to subsequent policy changes. One Study Suggests Realignment Caused a Modest Increase in Property Crime. The most rigorous study available on the effects of realignment on crime found no evidence that realignment increased violent crime. However, it did find evidence that realignment increased California’s property crime rate, primarily by increasing the auto theft rate by 17 percent. Key Takeaways From Review of 2011 Realignment Improved Alignment of Incentives Within the Criminal Justice System. Prior to the 2011 realignment, counties made key sentencing decisions, but the state incurred most of the cost of incarceration for felony sentences. This structure gave counties a broad fiscal incentive to pursue felony sentences, even though they are generally the most costly option. After realignment, counties now bear a greater share of the costs of felony sentences. As a result, county decisions about sentencing now incorporate the costs of incarceration for many felony sentences—thereby better aligning counties’ costs with their decision-making authority. Led to a Large Decrease in Caseload but a Comparatively Small Increase in Crime, Suggesting a Potential Improvement in Overall Cost-Effectiveness. Realignment resulted in a net decrease—by tens of thousands of people—in the total state and county criminal justice population. Yet research suggests that it only contributed to a modest increase in property crime and had no effect on violent crime. Helped Address Significant Problems Facing the State. For example, realignment helped the state to reduce severe prison overcrowding. Without it, the state would have had to pay for significantly more prison capacity and/or allow the federal courts to release tens of thousands of people from prison. www.lao.ca.gov 3 analysis full AN LAO REPORT Increased Population Pressure on Jails, Particularly Initially. Jails responded to increased population pressure primarily by increasing the number of people who were released earlier than otherwise. However, Proposition 47 (2014)—which converted some lower-level felonies to misdemeanors—largely relieved this pressure. In addition, jail construction projects have led to the addition of over 8,000 beds statewide and modernization of some existing capacity. Led to Higher Risk and Need Populations at the County Level. The populations shifted to county jurisdiction appear to have relatively high risks of reoffending and/or higher service and treatment needs. Moreover, jails are likely exposed to higher cost pressures and other challenges associated with the new populations. Was Affected by Subsequent Changes, Which Influenced How Its Impacts Evolved Over Time. For example, while realignment initially created population pressures on jails and led to early releases, Proposition 47 significantly mitigated the population pressures created by realignment. Accordingly, in considering realignment today, it is necessary to consider how subsequent changes to the criminal justice system have interacted with it. Is Difficult to Fully Evaluate Due to the Limited Information on County Activities and Outcomes. There was an expectation that counties could achieve better outcomes than the state due to their greater flexibility to adapt programs and services. However, it is difficult to assess whether this has occurred due to limited data on county activities and outcomes as well as the inherent difficulty of knowing what outcomes would have been absent the 2011 realignment. 4 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full AN LAO REPORT INTRODUCTION Chapter 96 of 2023 (AB 1080, Ta) directs our how it was implemented, (3) discuss how criminal office to submit a report evaluating the results of justice populations changed immediately following realigning certain adult felony populations from realignment and over the subsequent several the state to counties in 2011. Specifically, the years, (4) review research on the impact of the law directs our office to report various pieces 2011 realignment on crime and recidivism (the of information, including the amount of funding rate at which people reoffend), and (5) present received per county, information on sentencing key takeaways on this major policy change. In practices, impacts on county jail populations, preparing this report, we analyzed available criminal and recidivism outcomes. This report responds justice system data and reviewed research on the to the reporting requirement in Chapter 96. (For 2011 realignment. This report was also informed the full text of Chapter 96, please see Appendix by discussions with a sample of county and state 1.) In this report, we (1) provide an overview of the criminal justice system leaders. 2011 realignment, (2) discuss certain aspects of WHAT IS “REALIGNMENT”? Realignment Refers to Changes in Program Realignments That Shift Responsibility to Responsibility Between the State and Counties. Counties Typically Provide Them Additional California’s counties play a dual role in providing Revenues. In cases where the state shifts services to residents—acting as both a local significant responsibilities to counties, rather than government entity and as an agent of the state. As a reimburse counties based on their actual costs, local government entity, counties are responsible the state typically provides counties specific for providing municipal services (such as policing revenue sources—such as a portion of state and waste management) to the unincorporated sales tax revenue—to pay for their increased fiscal areas within the county. As agents of the state, responsibilities under a realignment. In some years, counties are responsible for administering many revenues may exceed counties’ costs. In other of the state’s health, welfare, and criminal justice years, the revenues provided may not be sufficient programs (such as probation). Several times over to cover counties’ costs. Over time, however, the the last few decades, the state has sought to revenue provided through realignment is intended to achieve policy improvements by reviewing state roughly cover counties’ costs for required realigned and county government programs and realigning programs. For more on the fiscal mechanisms of responsibilities to a level of government more able to realignments, see the box on the next page. tailor programs to local needs. These realignments change the administrative, programmatic, and/or fiscal responsibility for these programs between the state and counties. www.lao.ca.gov 5 analysis full AN LAO REPORT Understanding the Fiscal Architecture of the Past Two Major Realignments California Has Enacted Two Major Realignments. Over the past several decades, the state has implemented several realignments. The most significant realignments from the state to counties occurred in 1991 and 2011. These realignments affected multiple programs and resulted in significant revenue and cost shifts from the state to counties. Both Realignments Were Designed to Help the State’s Budget Condition. Both 1991 and 2011 realignment were enacted in the midst of challenging state budget conditions and helped the state address its budget shortfalls. Both realignments primarily shifted program costs from the state to counties and provided counties with dedicated revenue streams to pay for these increased costs. (For some select programs, the realignments shifted costs from the counties to the state.) This resulted in savings that helped the state address its budget problems. The state took a somewhat different approach in how it funded the two realignments. Ultimately, though, both realignments relied on tax and fee increases to fund realignment costs, as explained below. In 1991, the State Provided Counties With New Tax Revenues for Realignment Costs. To pay for counties’ increased costs for carrying out program responsibilities, the state dedicated two revenue sources to 1991 realignment: (1) a new half-cent sales tax and (2) a portion of the vehicle license fee (VLF). The half-cent sales tax was new revenue, approved by the voters for the purposes of realignment. The VLF was increased by changing the calculation of a car’s value for the purposes of the tax. 2011 Realignment Redirected Existing State Revenues to Counties to Help Fund Realignment… To help pay for counties’ increased costs for realigned programs as part of the 2011 realignment, the state reallocated a portion of the existing state sales tax to a special fund designated for county realignment purposes. This action reduced state General Fund revenues by about $5 billion in 2011-12. By depositing the sales tax revenue into a special fund for use by local governments for realignment, the funds were not counted as state revenue for purposes of calculating the Proposition 98 minimum education funding guarantee. This action had the effect of reducing state General Fund obligations for K-12 schools and community colleges by about $2 billion. Budget trailer bill language specified, however, that the exclusion of these revenues was contingent upon voter approval of a ballot measure providing additional funding for education. This funding backfill was approved in 2012 as part of Proposition 30, which, among other things, increased personal income taxes on high-income taxpayers. …As Well as Redirected VLF Revenues. As part of 2011 realignment, the 2011-12 budget also redirected $453 million from the base 0.65 percent VLF rate to pay for counties’ increased costs associated with the realigned programs. Under prior law, these VLF revenues were allocated to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) ($300 million) for administrative purposes and to cities and Orange County ($153 million) for general purposes. The budget increased the motor vehicle registration fee by $12 per automobile to offset the lost revenue to DMV. 6 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full AN LAO REPORT WHAT WAS THE 2011 REALIGNMENT OF ADULT FELONY POPULATIONS? In 2011, the state shifted some responsibilities However, this expansion in systemwide design and funding for several programmatic areas capacity was insufficient to accommodate to counties. This shift included responsibility population growth. Accordingly, the state converted for incarcerating and supervising certain adult areas of prisons not intended to be used for felony populations, child welfare programs, adult housing—such as gymnasiums—into dormitories protective services, trial court security, and various and replaced some double bunk beds with triple public safety grant programs. This report focuses bunk beds. In 2006, at the height of overcrowding, on the adult felony population component, which the state was operating its prisons at more than was the most significant policy change made by 200 percent of their design capacity. the 2011 realignment. In this section, we provide …Which Led to Various Operational background on key challenges the state was facing Challenges… Prison overcrowding created various at the time, specific felony populations that were challenges to prison management. For example, realigned, revenues intended to pay for them, overcrowding put extra strain on physical and additional changes that were made to assist infrastructure, complicated delivery of services counties in managing these new populations. inside prison (such as health care), and likely created a higher tension environment for people MAJOR RESTRUCTURE OF living and working in prison. Moreover, when areas CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM not designed for housing—such as gymnasiums— were converted to dormitories, it prevented THAT RESPONDED TO KEY STATE these spaces from being used as intended, such CHALLENGES as to provide exercise and recreation to the State Faced Fiscal Pressures Due to prison population. Great Recession. When California entered the …And Litigation. In November 2006, plaintiffs Great Recession at the end of 2007, it faced a in two ongoing class action lawsuits—currently deteriorating revenue picture, structural shortfalls, referred to as Plata v. Newsom (involving medical and effectively no reserves. Between 2008-09 and care for incarcerated people) and Coleman 2012-13, California faced annual budget shortfalls v. Newsom (involving mental health care for in the tens of billions of dollars. The state took incarcerated people)—filed motions for the courts various actions, including the 2011 realignment, to to convene a three-judge panel pursuant to the close these shortfalls. As discussed in the nearby U.S. Prison Litigation Reform Act. The plaintiffs box, realignments are a tool the state has used to argued that persistent overcrowding in the state’s navigate fiscal challenges. prison system was preventing the California State Prisons Were Overcrowded… Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation California’s prison population experienced a (CDCR) from delivering constitutionally adequate period of significant growth between the late health care. In August 2009, the three-judge panel 1970s and early 2000s. Specifically, the population declared that overcrowding in the state’s prison increased from 21,100 in 1976 to a peak of 173,600 system was the primary reason that CDCR was in 2006. Over this period, the state constructed unable to provide constitutionally adequate health 22 new prisons, as well as additional housing at care. Specifically, the court ruled that for CDCR some of its 12 pre-existing prisons—more than to provide such care, overcrowding would have doubling the design capacity of the prison system. to be reduced to no more than 137.5 percent of (Design capacity generally refers to the number of design capacity within two years. If the state failed beds the state prison system would operate if it to comply, the court would release the number of housed only one person per cell and did not use people necessary to achieve compliance. temporary beds, such as housing people in gyms.) www.lao.ca.gov 7 analysis full AN LAO REPORT On May 23, 2011, this ruling was upheld by the THREE FELONY POPULATIONS U.S. Supreme Court. Around that time, state REALIGNED FROM THE STATE TO prisons were operating at roughly 180 percent of COUNTIES design capacity—or about 34,000 people over the court-ordered limit. The state made several In an effort to address the above problems, changes that helped reduce prison overcrowding. the 2011 realignment shifted three distinct felony This included temporarily paying for bed space populations from state to county responsibility: in contractor-operated prisons, constructing new (1) certain people sentenced to state prison, state-operated prison capacity, and reducing the (2) certain people under state parole supervision, prison population through changes to sentencing and (3) people who violate the terms of their law, such as the 2011 realignment. supervision after release from prison. These shifts were done on a prospective basis effective Criminal Justice System Had Misaligned October 1, 2011, meaning that no people who Incentives… In addition to some of the were a state responsibility prior to that date were challenges then facing the state, there were other transferred to the counties. The shifted populations long-standing concerns about misaligned fiscal are discussed in detail below and summarized incentives in the criminal justice system. Because in Figure 1. responsibility for California’s criminal justice system is divided among different state and local agencies, Certain People Sentenced to State choices made by one level of government can affect Prison the costs for a different level of government thereby creating counter-productive fiscal incentives. Before Realignment, Any Felony Conviction For example, county prosecutors must make Could Result in a Prison Sentence. Before the decisions about what type of criminal charges and 2011 realignment, any adult convicted of a felony punishments to pursue, such as whether to pursue could be sentenced to state prison. However, a state prison sentence, county jail sentence, or depending on their criminal history and the county probation. However, incarcerating people discretion of a judge, people convicted of felonies in state prison largely creates costs for the state, could receive felony probation in lieu of a state whereas incarcerating them in county jail or placing prison term. People placed on felony probation them on county probation largely creates costs are typically assigned to a county probation officer for the county. As we discuss further in the next who supervises them in the community. They can section, before realignment, any felony conviction also be required to spend time in county jail as a could lead to a prison sentence. Accordingly, condition of their probation. county prosecutors had a broad fiscal incentive to After Realignment, People Convicted of pursue prison sentences over lesser punishments. Nonserious, Nonviolent, Non-Sex Offenses …And There Were Concerns That Its Generally Managed by Counties. The 2011 Structure Adversely Affected Outcomes. In realignment limited who could be sent to state addition, policymakers at the time were concerned prison, thereby requiring that more people be that the state was limited in its ability to improve managed by counties. Specifically, sentences to criminal justice system outcomes (such as reducing state prison are now limited to people who are recidivism—the rate at which people reoffend after required to register as sex offenders, people with leaving the criminal justice system) because it is current or prior convictions for felonies classified less able to adapt to local needs. Specifically, when as “violent” and/or “serious” (such as murder, it adopted the 2011 realignment, the Legislature robbery, and burglary of an occupied residence), expressed an expectation that counties could and people who commit certain other specified achieve better outcomes than the state due to their felonies (such as exhibiting a deadly weapon with greater flexibility to adapt programs and services— the intent of resisting arrest). Thus, counties are such as mental health, which was already largely a now responsible for housing and supervising all county responsibility—to fit the local needs of the people convicted of felonies who do not meet realigned felony populations. these criteria. These people can receive one of the following county-level sentences: 8 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full AN LAO REPORT Figure 1 Incarceration and Supervision of People Convicted of Felonies After the 2011 Realignment Incarceration as Supervision After a Sanction for Sentence Completing Sentence Supervision Violation Current conviction for a Prison Parole Jail serious or violent felony No current conviction for a serious or violent felony, but any of the following are true: Prior conviction for a serious or violent felony Post Release Prison Community Jail Supervision Required to register as a sex offender Current conviction for a felony for which prison is specified Jail or Jail and Any other felony conviction Mandatory None Not Applicable Supervision Changed as a result of 2011 realignment Notes: Figure depicts the general flows of individuals convicted of felonies after the 2011 realignment. Some exceptions are not depicted. For example, after realignment, people who are assessed as having a high risk of committing a sex offense are still placed under parole supervision even if they do not have a current coviction for a serious or violent felony. Prior to the 2011 realignment, all felony incarceration sentences were served in prison, all people released from prison were placed under parole supervision after release, and they could be returned to state prison as a sanction for violating the terms of their supervision. • Straight Sentence. People who receive a be served in jail, a judge can specify that a county-level sentence of incarceration for a portion shall be served in the community felony conviction can be required to serve their under the supervision of a county probation entire sentence in county jail. In other words, officer. The period of time these people for these people, realignment simply changed are being supervised in the community is the location of their incarceration from state called “mandatory supervision.” This time is prison to county jail. This is often referred to considered part of their sentence (as opposed as a “straight sentence.” to a period of supervision following completion • Split Sentence. The realignment legislation of a sentence). In practical terms, receiving a created a new sentencing option—called split sentence is similar to receiving jail as a “split sentences”—to give counties more condition of felony probation because both flexibility in managing the new population. involve a period in jail followed by community Specifically, it allowed judges to split a supervision. However, there are some notable realigned felony sentence between jail and differences. For example, felony probation is supervision in the community. In other words, limited to two years, while a split sentence can rather than requiring the entire sentence to be longer for some crimes. www.lao.ca.gov 9 analysis full AN LAO REPORT Unlike people who are sentenced to state the terms of their supervision could be placed prison—both before and after realignment—people in state prison, typically for around four months. who receive county-level sentences are not This contributed to a large volume of people coming supervised in the community following completion through state prison for relatively short periods of their sentences. In addition, the 2011 realignment of time. (In 2007, about 70,000 people on parole did not affect the rules around felony probation. were returned to state prison for technical parole Accordingly, people can still receive felony violations—in other words, without having been probation, including in lieu of serving a county-level convicted of a new crime. At any given time, about straight or split sentence. 20,000 people in prison were there for a parole violation.) The decision of whether to incarcerate Certain People Under people for violating the terms of their supervision— State Parole Supervision or to impose a different sanction, such a drug Before Realignment, All People Released testing—is made at a revocation hearing. Before From Prison Were Supervised by State Parole realignment, these hearings were conducted by Agents. Before realignment, all people released the state Board of Parole Hearings, which paid for from state prison were supervised in the community attorneys to represent people in these hearings. for a period of time by state parole agents. Parole After Realignment, Parole Violators Are agents ensure the people they supervise abide by Generally Placed in County Jail. Following the terms of their supervision, such as avoiding realignment, people released from prison—whether specific places or abstaining from alcohol. They to state parole or county PRCS—are generally apprehend and sanction those who violate the placed in county jail, rather than state prison, for terms of their supervision or otherwise break violations resulting in incarceration. In addition, the law. They also refer people to rehabilitation state trial courts assumed responsibility for programs or other services. revocation hearings for people on state parole After Realignment, People Whose Current or county PRCS. Such hearings involve county Offense is Nonserious and Nonviolent are prosecutors and county indigent defense attorneys. Supervised by Counties. After realignment, state However, if a person commits a new prison-eligible parole agents only supervise people released crime and is convicted, they can still be sent to from prison whose current offense is classified as state prison. serious or violent as well as certain others, such as people who are assessed as having a high risk of STATE REVENUES committing a sex offense. The remaining people— REALIGNED TO COUNTIES including those with prior convictions for serious Portion of State Sales Tax Revenue or violent felonies—are released from prison to Shifted to Counties to Pay for Three Felony community supervision under county jurisdiction. Populations. As a part of the 2011 realignment County supervision of people released from state legislation, the state shifted a portion of sales prison is referred to as Post Release Community tax revenue to counties to pay for their increased Supervision (PRCS) and is conducted by county costs associated with managing the three felony probation departments. Probation officers have populations. As shown in Figure 2, that amount similar duties to those of parole agents, such as is currently around $2 billion annually—more enforcing terms of supervision, apprehending than doubling since 2012-13, the first full year of violators, and referring people to services. implementation. These revenues are equivalent to People Who Violate the roughly one-quarter of total county spending on adult corrections. In addition, they have typically Terms of Their Supervision represented less than 2 percent of overall county Before Realignment, Parole Violators Could revenue, which has also generally grown over Be Returned to State Prison. Prior to realignment, time. (The total amount of revenue that was people under state parole supervision who violated shifted to local governments to pay for all of the 10 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full AN LAO REPORT Figure 2 Revenue Realigned to Counties to Pay for Three Felony Populations Has Generally Increased (In Billions) $2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 2011-12ª 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 ª Revenue reflected a partial year of workload because the realignment became effective in October 2011, part way through the 2011-12 fiscal year. responsibilities that were realigned in 2011— responsibility for the criminal justice system while including the three felony populations—is currently allowing them flexibility in how to manage the new around $11 billion annually and is composed of workload was expected to improve outcomes. sales tax and vehicle license fee revenues.) To facilitate that, the realignment legislation Revenue Allocated to Counties on a Formula provided counties with some additional options for Basis. The revenues are allocated to counties how to manage the new populations. This includes based on a formula developed by the Department the previously mentioned split sentences, which of Finance in consultation with the California State allow a judge to sentence someone convicted of Association of Counties (CSAC). The formula a felony to a combination of jail and community allocates funding based on (1) factors related to supervision. In addition, the legislation allowed county size and conditions, such as overall adult county probation officers to place people who population and crime rate, and (2) factors that violate the terms of their community supervision in reflect county performance, including sending jail for up to ten days without a court hearing, which fewer new commitments to prison from one year is commonly referred to as “flash incarceration.” to the next. Figure 3 on the next page shows The rationale for using flash incarceration is that how funding was allocated in 2024-25. (For more short terms of incarceration, when applied soon information about the allocation formula and after offenses are identified, have been found amounts, see Appendix 2.) in other states to be more effective at deterring subsequent violations than the threat of longer ADDITIONAL CHANGES TO terms following lengthy criminal proceedings. ASSIST COUNTIES TO MANAGE Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC). The realignment legislation also created REALIGNED POPULATIONS a new state department, BSCC, to centralize New Tools to Manage Realigned Populations. state-level oversight, grant-making, and technical As discussed above, expanding counties’ share of assistance for the local correctional system. www.lao.ca.gov 11 analysis full AN LAO REPORT Figure 3 Realigned Revenue Per Capita Varies 2024-25 Per Capita Revenue Revenue Over $70 $1,000,000 $60 - $70 $10,000,000 $50 - $60 $40 - $50 $30 - $40 $50,000,000 12 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full AN LAO REPORT In particular, responsibility for setting minimum These funds have been awarded to counties standards for local detention facilities was through a competitive program administered shifted to BSCC from CDCR. BSCC was also by BSCC. As of September 8, 2025, projects given responsibility for administering some local associated with 36 awards were completed, criminal justice grants that previously resided yielding a net capacity gain of 8,266 beds. Projects with the California Emergency Management associated with the remaining 17 awards were Agency, now known as the Office of Emergency not yet completed and are expected to yield Services. The BSCC board is currently made up a net capacity increase of 151 beds. For more of 15 members, including representatives of local information, see Appendix 3. governments and agencies as well as other aspects Community Corrections Partnership Plans. of the state and local criminal justice system. Since 2009, each county in California has been Jail Construction Financing. Since 2007, the required to maintain a Community Corrections state has authorized about $2.5 billion in General Partnership (CCP), which is a group that consists Fund-backed lease revenue bonds to fund the of several key actors in each county’s criminal construction and modernization of county jails, with justice system. This includes the presiding judge, the majority of it being authorized after the 2011 chief probation officer, sheriff, district attorney, realignment to help counties manage its impacts. public defender, and the heads of various county (As discussed in the “Jail Population Management” human services departments. The realignment section of this report, the jail population increased legislation requires each county’s CCP to annually by about 8,500 [12 percent] one year after prepare and submit recommended plans for realignment.) Specifically, the state has provided: managing the realigned populations to their county’s board of supervisors. In addition, between • $1.2 billion authorized by Chapter 7 of 2011-12 and 2023-24, the state provided BSCC 2007 (AB 900, Solorio) to increase housing $8 million General Fund per year to distribute capacity of county jails. Originally intended to counties that submitted their CCP’s plan to to incentivize counties to allow the state to BSCC and completed an annual survey about site new prison facilities within them, most realignment implementation, such as how counties of these funds were repurposed shortly after allocated realignment revenues for the three the passage of the 2011 realignment to allow felony populations. (This funding was eliminated counties to use the funds to help manage their in 2024-25 and ongoing in response to the state’s new responsibilities. budget shortfall. In light of the funding elimination, • $500 million authorized by Chapter 42 of 2012 BSCC stopped collecting the CCP plans (SB 1022, Committee on Budget and Fiscal and surveys.) Review) primarily to increase program and Funding for Statewide Training to Support health care space in jails, though funds could Implementation. The 2011-12 Budget Act also be used to add housing capacity. provided $1 million one-time General Fund for • $500 million authorized by Chapter 37 of 2014 CSAC, the California State Sheriffs’ Association, (SB 863, Committee on Budget and Fiscal and the Chief Probation Officers of California to Review) for the same purpose as Chapter 42. conduct statewide training efforts related to the • $270 million authorized by Chapter 34 of implementation of realignment. 2016 (SB 844, Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review) with $250 million for the same purpose as Chapters 42 and 37 and $20 million for Napa County to repair damages its jail sustained in a 2014 earthquake. www.lao.ca.gov 13 analysis full AN LAO REPORT HOW HAS REALIGNMENT BEEN IMPLEMENTED? In this section, we discuss how the 2011 Total Felony Arrests Resulting in Convictions realignment affected felony sentencing practices, Have Generally Declined. Figure 4 on page PRCS caseloads and supervision practices, and 16 shows total felony arrests that resulted in a jail population management. We also describe the conviction and sentence to prison, jail, or probation. limited available information about how counties People arrested for felonies are sometimes use the realigned tax revenue. In many cases, ultimately convicted of misdemeanors. Accordingly, we describe how these practices have changed sentences to jail prior to the 2011 realignment since realignment was implemented. However, are likely misdemeanor convictions. As shown in other significant criminal justice policy changes Figure 4, there was a modest increase in total felony over this period have affected many of these same arrests resulting in conviction following realignment. practices, making it difficult to isolate the effects of It is not clear why this increase occurred and may realignment alone. Notably, Proposition 47 (2014)— not have been tied to realignment. More notably, which converted some nonserious, nonviolent, there was a clear drop after 2014, which is very non-sex crimes from felonies to misdemeanors— likely associated with Proposition 47 converting and various changes that occurred during the some lower-level felony crimes to misdemeanors. COVID-19 pandemic significantly reduced both We then see another drop in 2019, which DOJ arrests and criminal justice populations at both reports is associated with a one-year drop in the state and county level. (For more information reporting. However, the decline remains in 2020 about these changes, please see the nearby box.) and 2021—likely driven by pandemic-era changes— As a result, in some cases, we analyze data during before returning to pre-pandemic levels in 2022. We the window of time immediately before and after also see in Figure 4 that sentences to jail more than realignment is implemented. This type of analysis doubled between 2010 and 2012, while sentences provides a better understanding of the effects of to prison decreased. This was likely primarily realignment before these other policy changes caused by realignment, which we explore in more took effect. detail in the next figures. With Realignment, Sentences to Prison Felony Sentencing Practices Decreased and Sentences to Jail Increased, In this section, we present data reported by Driven Primarily by Property and Drug courts to the California Department of Justice Felonies. As shown in Figure 5 on page 17, the (DOJ) on the numbers of adult felony arrests number of adult felony arrests that resulted in that resulted in a conviction and sentence to a conviction and sentence to prison decreased prison, jail, or probation. First, we show the notably after 2011 for both property and drug outcomes of adult felony arrests for the full period crimes. In contrast, sentences to jail for property from pre-realignment to the present, in which and drug crimes increased notably. This shows a Proposition 47 and the pandemic-era changes are distinct shift of sentences for property and drug notable factors that contribute to the overall trends. crimes from prison to jail, as expected given the Next, we narrow the focus on the three years before changes made by the 2011 realignment. In addition, and the three years after the 2011 realignment—a we see that sentences for violent crimes were period where realignment is likely one of the primary largely unaffected. Sentences to prison for crimes factors affecting these outcomes—and explore how classified as “other” were largely unaffected, sentencing outcomes changed for property, drug, while sentences to jail for other crimes increased violent, and other crimes. Finally, we present data somewhat. This slightly inconsistent result may on the use of split versus straight jail sentences be due to unknown factors impacting one or ranging from 2013 (when Judicial Council began more of the wide variety of crimes classified as collecting it) to the present. other—including various sex offenses, gambling, extortion, driving under the influence, perjury, and manslaughter. 14 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full AN LAO REPORT State Implemented Other Major Criminal Justice Policy Changes After Realignment Proposition 47 (2014). Proposition 47, which was approved by the voters in November 2014, reduced certain nonserious and nonviolent drug possession and property crimes from wobblers or felonies to misdemeanors. (Wobblers are crimes that can be charged as either a felony or a misdemeanor.) For example, prior to Proposition 47, possession for personal use of most illegal drugs (such as cocaine or heroin) was a misdemeanor, a wobbler, or a felony—depending on the amount and type of drug. Proposition 47 specified that such crimes would always be misdemeanors. In addition, Proposition 47 specified that all thefts of property worth $950 or less are misdemeanors. Previously, some of these crimes could be punished as felonies depending on the type of property taken or if the defendant had certain previous theft-related convictions. The measure limited these reduced penalties to people who have not committed certain severe crimes, such as murder, and are not required to register as sex offenders. Proposition 36, which was approved by the voters in 2024, reversed some of the punishment reductions that were made by Proposition 47. For example, under Proposition 36, thefts of property worth $950 or less can now be punished as felonies if the defendant has two or more past convictions for certain theft crimes (such as shoplifting, burglary, or carjacking). Pandemic-Era Changes. Many changes in California’s criminal justice system occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. Some were directly tied to public health responses, while others just happened to coincide with the timing of the pandemic. We describe some of the notable changes below. • Temporary Public Health Responses. Numerous actions to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in the community, courtrooms, correctional facilities, and other workplaces affected the criminal justice system in various ways. For example, local law enforcement agencies implemented various temporary policies—such as delaying planned arrests unless doing so would jeopardize public safety—to reduce interactions with community members in order to mitigate the spread of the virus. In addition, in April 2020, Judicial Council (the policymaking and governing body of the judicial branch) adopted a statewide emergency bail schedule that set bail for arrestees at $0 for most misdemeanors and low-level felonies. Local bail schedules applied otherwise. However, judges retained the ability to deviate from the bail schedules. This change substantially increased the number of people who were immediately released from jail after being arrested. • Other Changes That Coincided With the Pandemic Era. There were various policy changes that occurred around the same time as the pandemic, but were not direct responses to the public health emergency. For example, the 2021-22 budget package provided the judicial branch with $140 million—a portion of which was ongoing—to support programs and activities aimed at reducing pretrial detention of people in jail, including funding for pretrial monitoring services. This made a two-year pilot program initially funded as part of the 2019-20 budget package permanent and expanded it statewide. Such changes may have reduced the number of people detained in jail pretrial. In addition, Chapter 328 of 2020 (AB 1950, Kamlager) reduced maximum probation terms to one year for misdemeanors and two years for felonies. Previously, misdemeanor probation terms could last up to three years and felony probation terms could last up to the greater of five years or the maximum sentence for the crime the person was on probation for. www.lao.ca.gov 15 analysis full AN LAO REPORT Figure 4 Changes After the 2011 Realignment Impacted Felony Arrests Resulting in Conviction 250,000 Prison Jail Probation or Probation With Jail 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019a 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2011 Realignment Proposition 47 COVID-19 Pandemic a In 2019, there was a decrease in the number of final dispositions and sentences for adult felony arrests reported to the California Department of Justice. With Realignment, Grants of Probation Straight and Split Jail Sentences Represent Remained Relatively Constant. In Figure 6 on Small, Declining Share of Total Felony page 18, we see that realignment did not appear Sentences. As discussed earlier, the only way a to have a major effect on the number of felony person convicted of a felony could remain in county arrests that resulted in probation. (It is unclear jail prior to the 2011 realignment was if they were whether courts reported split sentences—which placed there as condition of felony probation. are legally distinct but similar in practical terms to Accordingly, straight and split jail sentences did probation with some jail time—as part of this data, not exist prior to realignment. However, we can but as discussed below, split sentences represent look at how they have been used since Judicial a relatively small portion of overall sentences.) Council began collecting data on them in 2013. The decision to grant probation in lieu of requiring As Figure 7 on page 18 shows, straight and split a defendant to serve a prison or jail sentence is jail sentences generally declined as a share of total primarily based on their underlying criminal risk felony sentences for counties that consistently factors and other individual circumstances, not reported data between 2013 and 2024. In total, whether the incarceration sentence would be these sentences declined from 17 percent to served in state prison or county jail. Accordingly, 9 percent over this period. Declines can be it makes sense that shifting the location of seen in late 2014 and mid-2020, suggesting that incarceration for certain felony sentences from Proposition 47 and the pandemic era reduced not prison to jail under realignment would not have a only the total number of felony sentences, but also major impact on grants of probation. the share of felony sentences that fall under county 16 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full AN LAO REPORT appropriate in a particular case. As shown in Figure 7, Figure 5 there was not a notable Sentences to Prison Decreased and Sentences to increase in split sentences after this law went into effect. Jail Increased, Driven Primarily by Property and Drug Felonies It is possible that judges were already favoring split Prison sentences in situations they 2011 Realignment 14,000 felt were appropriate. Property Prevalence of Straight 12,000 and Split Jail Sentences Other Varies by County. Figure 8 10,000 on page 19 shows the Violent percentage breakdown of 8,000 felony sentences by type for 6,000 counties that consistently Drug reported data over the 4,000 period 2013 to 2024. As the figure shows, the 2,000 prevalence of straight and split jail sentences varies 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 by county. For example, combined straight and split Jail jail sentences range from 2011 Realignment 1 percent of total sentences in 10,000 Drug Alameda County to 24 percent 8,000 in Del Norte County. There Property could be various reasons for 6,000 differences in the prevalence of these sentences by county. 4,000 Other Violent For example, differences could be associated with 2,000 varying attitudes toward punishment (as split 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 sentences may be seen as less severe than straight sentences), jail capacity (as split sentences require less responsibility. In the case of Proposition 47, this capacity), or fiscal pressures (as split sentences reduction was likely tied to the fact that the measure are typically less costly). converted many lower-level felonies—which are often served at the county-level—to misdemeanors. PRCS Caseloads and Practices The pandemic-era reduction could have various As discussed above, under the 2011 realignment, possible causes, including reduced enforcement people released from prison after serving terms of lower-level felonies. Beginning January 1, 2015, for nonserious, nonviolent felonies are generally Chapter 26 of 2014 (AB 1468, Committee on supervised on PRCS by county probation Budget) established a statutory presumption in departments. Below, as required by Chapter 96, favor of split sentences, over straight sentences, we provide information on PRCS caseloads unless the court finds that a split sentence is not www.lao.ca.gov 17 analysis full AN LAO REPORT and practices. Specifically, we discuss how the by using the California Static Risk Assessment PRCS population is different from the population (CSRA), which uses a person’s age, gender, released to state parole supervision under and past criminal history to identify their risk realignment. We also provide details on the tools of reoffending. Based on the risk score, CSRA available to probation departments to encourage classifies people into three categories—high, people on PRCS to comply with the terms moderate, and low risk. When comparing people of supervision. released to PRCS to those released to parole, PRCS Caseloads Tend to Be Higher Risk. more people released to PRCS had high CSRA CDCR staff generally determine criminal risk factors risk scores (54 percent) than parole releases (31 percent), indicating a greater likelihood of reoffending. People Figure 6 released to PRCS also exhibited higher reconviction rates (45 percent Grants of Probation Remained Relatively Constant reconvicted within three years) 2011 Realignment compared to those placed under parole 60,000 Drug supervision (33 percent reconvicted 50,000 within three years). Accordingly, while Other they may have less serious commitment 40,000 offenses than people released to Property parole, people released to PRCS tend 30,000 to be higher risk. This could be due to Violent 20,000 people on PRCS having more property or drug crimes than those on parole. 10,000 According to CDCR, convictions for these crimes have been associated 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 with a greater likelihood of committing subsequent crimes. Figure 7 Straight and Split Jail Sentences Represent Small, Declining Share of Total Felony Sentencesª 12% Straight Sentences 10 8 6 Split Sentences 4 2 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 a Figure only includes counties that consistently reported data between 2013 and 2024. 18 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full AN LAO REPORT Figure 8 Sentencing Practices Vary by Countyª 2013-2024 Straight Jail Split Jail Felony Probation Prison Del Norte Los Angeles Kern Riverside Colusa Mariposa Ventura Orange Lake Placer Monterey San Mateo Fresno Santa Cruz Stanislaus Mendocino Butte Solano Lassen Tuolumne Yuba Humboldt Inyo El Dorado Shasta Imperial Santa Barbara Contra Costa Siskiyou Alameda 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100% ª Figure only includes counties that consistently reported data between 2013 and 2024. www.lao.ca.gov 19 analysis full AN LAO REPORT Probation Can Impose Intermediate 2019. While these decreases could be related to Sanctions for Violations. When a person under Proposition 47 in 2014 and the COVID-19 pandemic community supervision violates the terms of their in 2020, it is unclear whether that is the case or supervision, the assigned probation officer imposes what other factors may have led to those changes. a formal or informal sanction, depending on the Jail Time Is a Common Outcome of Formal seriousness of the behavior. Informal sanctions— Sanctions. Formal sanctions tend to be reserved also called intermediate sanctions—tend to be for serious or moderate violations, typically result reserved for minor (and sometimes moderate) in a change to the terms of supervision, and can violations that do not require court involvement. involve courts. Petitions filed in a court—usually Intermediate sanctions can include verbal warnings, from probation departments—generally allege that behavior contracts, referrals to programs, increased the person on community supervision has had check-ins with probation officers, and various other serious or frequent noncompliant behavior with the activities to discourage the negative behavior. terms of the supervision. In 2023, petitions were As discussed above, probation departments can filed for 650 out of every 1,000 people on PRCS. also use flash incarcerations, which are short When a petition is filed, the court then determines periods of detention—typically one to ten days—in whether a violation did happen and what the a county jail for violating the terms of supervision. sanction should be (if any). Courts have various Figure 9 shows the statewide rate of flash sanctions as options, including (1) reinstating incarcerations for people on PRCS ramped up in supervision without jail time, (2) ordering jail time— the initial years of realignment but has generally with the person being reinstated to supervision declined since then. Notable drops in the rate of after release, (3) referring the person to reentry flash incarcerations can be seen after 2014 and court services—where they receive additional rehabilitation services, and (4) terminating supervision—which Figure 9 typically involves imposing jail time. Flash Incarcerations of People on Judicial Council tracks the usage PRCS Increased Quickly Before Declining of these violation sanctions. As Rate Per 1000 People on PRCS shown in Figure 10, most people found to be in violation of their PRCS received jail time. As such, 400 unsuccessful completions of supervision can have a significant 350 impact on county jail populations. For example, in 2017, the Public 300 Policy Institute of California (PPIC) 250 found that roughly one in four people in jail were under some 200 form of community supervision for a prior conviction at the time 150 of arrest. In addition, they found that the average number of days 100 people spent in jail while on PRCS (117.2 days) or mandatory 50 supervision (150.3 days) was considerably larger than the average days spent in jail while 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 on traditional felony (84.9 days) or PRCS = Post Release Community Supervision. misdemeanor (45 days) probation. 20 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full AN LAO REPORT more on this program, please see our report The Figure 10 2025-26 Budget: SB 678 County Probation Most People Who Commit Grant Program.) Probation departments have also reported that the nature of their work has changed Violations on PRCS Spend Time in Jail to include more social work type tasks, which could Outcomes of Violations in 2023 be related to the increase in services available. Termination Reinstated Jail Population Management Reentry 12% (Without Jail Time) Court Referral 19% As discussed in previous sections, realignment 1% shifted certain felony sentences and parole supervision violators from state prison to county jail. These new populations put pressure on jails. In this section, we review trends in population pressures Jail Time faced by jails as well as how jails managed 69% that pressure. Jails Have Various Mechanisms to Relieve Population Pressure. Jails house adults who PRCS = Post Release Community Supervison. (1) have been arrested for a crime and are awaiting trial or court decisions, (2) are serving time for Probation Departments Report Increases committing a crime, or (3) have been placed in in Rehabilitative Services Offered. To help jail as a sanction for violating the terms of their people successfully complete the terms of their supervision in the community. As discussed supervision, probation departments offer various above, there are mechanisms at the sentencing rehabilitative services intended to address stage that can mitigate population pressure certain needs that—if left unmet—can increase on jails—such as felony probation and split the likelihood of further crime. In 2024, Judicial sentences. Jails also have various mechanisms Council reported that every probation department to release people from custody after they have in the state uses an assessment tool to identify been sentenced. For example, state law allows the various rehabilitative needs of the supervised jail administrators to apply to the presiding judge population. Judicial Council data also indicate that in their county to receive general authorization to there has been a general increase in the number manage overpopulation by accelerating the release of counties offering rehabilitative services. It of people serving sentences in jail. In addition, reports—based on five annual survey questions— state law allows counties to establish programs that the portion of probation departments offering in which people who are either awaiting trial or programming, treatment, and services consistent serving sentences in jail can be supervised in the with best practices increased from 34 percent in community under electronic monitoring. In some 2011 to 66 percent in 2024. Common program counties, court orders arising from litigation require offerings include cognitive behavioral therapy jail administrators to release people under particular (which aims to change negative patterns of conditions, such as when a certain population level behavior), mental health treatment, sex offender is reached. A 2014 study by researchers at Stanford treatment, education, employment readiness, University found that 39 facilities—33 percent or substance use disorder treatment. Part of of the total 119 county jail facilities at the time— this increase in services could be driven by the were operating under a court-ordered population Community Corrections Incentive Program (also cap. Because these orders tend to impact larger known as the SB 678 County Probation Grant counties, two-thirds of the jail population was Program) established in 2009. This program located in a county with one of these population provides grants to support rehabilitation programs caps. The researchers noted that most of these in counties that reduce the rate at which people court-orders had been in place for decades, well on community supervision are sent to prison pre-dating the 2011 realignment. (such as for committing new offenses). (For www.lao.ca.gov 21 analysis full AN LAO REPORT Realignment Impact on Jails Driven by three-person decrease in the prison population. Increase in People Serving Felony Sentences. In other words, realignment did not result in a Figure 11 shows changes in the jail population one-to-one population shift from prison to jail. This from October 2010 (one year before realignment is because some people who would have served an went into effect) through October 2014 (the month entire sentence in state prison prior to realignment before Proposition 47 was passed), including now serve a portion of their sentence under people who have been arrested (but not sentenced) supervision in the community as a result of having and people who have been sentenced. Within one received a split sentence. In addition, as discussed year of realignment taking effect, the jail population further below, the number of population-related increased by about 8,500 people (12 percent). early releases from jails increased after realignment This increase was primarily driven by an increase which dampened the increase in the jail population. in the number of people who had been sentenced In the First Few Years, Early Releases Were for felonies. This includes the two populations Used to Manage Population Pressure on Jails. that were shifted from state prison to county jails As shown in Figure 12, early releases from jails by realignment: (1) people serving felony terms in due to lack of housing capacity increased following county jail and (2) people placed in jail for violating the 2011 realignment, though they remained at or the terms of their parole or PRCS supervision. below levels seen in prior years. In a 2013 study, Increase in the Jail Population Was Smaller PPIC reported that between June 2011 and June Than the Decrease in the Prison Population. In a 2012 the number of counties operating jail systems 2013 study, PPIC found that realignment increased above their rated capacity increased from 11 to 16 the jail population by roughly one person for every and the number of counties reporting early releases Figure 11 Increase in Jail Population Following 2011 Realignment Driven by People Serving Felony Sentences 2011 Realignment 50,000 Felony (Not Sentenced) 45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 Felony (Sentenced) 20,000 15,000 10,000 Misdemeanor (Not Sentenced) 5,000 Misdemeanor (Sentenced) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 22 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full AN LAO REPORT from jail due to capacity constraints increased from people sentenced to jail for felonies into alternative 27 to 35. In addition, PPIC found evidence that custody settings—such as at home under electronic the new population coming to jails as a result of monitoring—in lieu of confinement in a jail facility. realignment was displacing people with lower-level (Similar programs already existed for various charges or convictions, particularly in counties other populations in jail prior to realignment.) subject to court-ordered population caps. At the Figure 13 on the next page shows (1) the number time of the study, 18 counties had one or more of new—straight or split—felony sentences to jail jail facilities that were subject to a court-ordered and (2) the number of people with such sentences population cap. PPIC estimated that in counties who were placed into alternative custody in lieu with court-ordered caps, one sentenced person of confinement in county jail. Between 2012 and per month was being released early for every 2024, the number of people placed into alternative four-person increase in the jail population caused custody represented between 9 percent and by realignment—compared to 1 for every 16 in 15 percent of the total number of felony jail counties without court-ordered caps. In addition, sentences. This practice may have helped ease they estimated that one unsentenced person was population pressure on jails. However, it is unclear released per month for every six-person increase whether the decision to place these people into in the jail population caused by realignment in alternative custody was motivated by jail capacity counties with caps. However, they found no impact limitations or other factors (such as helping people of realignment on releases of unsentenced people to maintain employment and/or family connections.) in counties without caps. The data did not allow the In the Longer Term, Proposition 47 and researchers to identify how early people were being Pandemic-Era Changes Significantly Reduced released—only that they were being released early. the Jail Population. As shown in Figure 14 on the Modest Portion of New Felony Population next page, Proposition 47 and various changes Is Placed in Non-Jail Setting. The realignment during the pandemic era led to notable decreases legislation specified that counties can place in the jail population. This has relieved population Figure 12 Monthly Jail Releases Due to Lack of Capacity Increased After 2011 Realignment 2011 Realignment Proposition 47 COVID-19 Pandemic 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 www.lao.ca.gov 23 analysis full AN LAO REPORT pressure on jails. In 2024, jails released about 5,300 people Figure 13 per month early compared to Alternative Custody for Local Felony Sentences about 13,400 per month in the May Have Helped Mitigate Population Pressure year before Proposition 47 was enacted (Figure 12). In addition, 35,000 as discussed previously, over Number of People Admitted to Jail With 8,000 new beds have been added New Straight or Split Felony Sentences 30,000 statewide to the jail system as a Number of People With Straight or Split Sentences Placed Into Alternative Custody Programs result of the lease revenue bond 25,000 authority authorized for counties 20,000 to add and modernize jail capacity. Together, these changes reduced 15,000 the need to release people early 10,000 due to the lack of capacity. Jails Likely Faced Various 5,000 Other Challenges Beyond Population Pressure. In 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 addition to increasing the overall size of the jail population, the 2011 realignment changed the composition of the jail population. Figure 14 Proposition 47 and Pandemic Era Relieved Population Pressure on Jails Population in County Jails 2011 Realignment Proposition 47 COVID-19 Pandemic 50,000 45,000 Felony (Not Sentenced) 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 Felony (Sentenced) 15,000 10,000 Misdemeanor (Not Sentenced) 5,000 Misdemeanor (Sentenced) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 24 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full AN LAO REPORT As previously discussed, it increased the share of County Use of Realigned Tax Revenues people with felony sentences in jail. This shift could Services Are Provided by Various County have had a number of impacts. For example, the Agencies and Nongovernmental Organizations. 2011 realignment expanded the circumstances As mentioned previously, between 2011-12 and under which people could face long-term jail stays 2023-24, BSCC surveyed county CCPs about by allowing certain felony sentences to be served in various aspects of realignment implementation, jail. When people stay in jail longer, it may obligate including how they allocated the tax revenues and jails to provide more or different types of health the types of services they offered. According to care or other services than would be necessary for the results of the most recent survey administered a short-term population. This, in turn, could have in November 2023, virtually all counties reported exposed jail systems to increased costs providing mental health (98 percent), substance and/or litigation if they struggled to provide this care. use (98 percent), housing (98 percent), employment In addition, anecdotally, some jail administrators (100 percent), education (91 percent), family reported an increased level of criminal sophistication (95 percent), domestic violence prevention and gang involvement among the new populations (95 percent), health (91 percent), and quality of received as a result of realignment. Data limitations life (97 percent) services. (Quality of life services do not allow us to assess the magnitude of these include assistance with obtaining a driver’s license trends. Moreover, we cannot determine whether or opening a bank account.) The survey also asked some of these trends would have materialized CCPs to report on what entity in their county regardless of the 2011 realignment. provides each type of service. The results are displayed in Figure 15. For example, not surprisingly, 96 percent of counties reported that their behavioral Figure 15 Services Are Provided by Various County Agencies and Nongovernmental Organizations Share of Counties That Reported Entity Was Providing Service in 2022-23 Mental or Domestic Behavioral Substance Violence Physical Quality Health Use Housing Employment Prevention Education Family Health of Life Sheriff Probation Behaiorval Health Community-Based Organization Other Share Not Offering Service Share Offering Service www.lao.ca.gov 25 analysis full AN LAO REPORT health department provides mental/behavioral are contracted to provide health care services health and substance use treatment—though inside jails), and deposits into reserve funds. As many counties also reported that other agencies shown in Figure 16, on average, the counties and nongovernmental organizations also provide typically allocate about two-thirds of their such services. realignment revenues to the sheriff and probation CCPs Report Allocating About Two-Thirds of departments. In 2021-22 and 2022-23, the share of Realignment Revenue to Sheriff and Probation funds allocated to other was higher than in previous Departments. We compiled information supplied years. These two years coincided with substantial to BSCC via these annual surveys for a sample increases in revenue, suggesting that counties of 15 counties to determine how they allocated may have allocated excess revenues to reserves their realignment revenue between their sheriffs’ or different uses that would be captured in the departments, probation departments, and other other category. entities. The “other” category includes county CCP Survey Design Limits Usefulness of agencies (such as behavioral health departments), Data. It is important to note that limitations inherent other local government entities (such as city police to the CCP survey design make it very difficult departments), and nongovernmental organizations to draw conclusions from this information. First, (including community-based organizations the survey only asked CCPs to report information and private entities, such as companies that on how they spend realigned revenues, which is Figure 16 Majority of Realignment Revenues Are Allocated to Sheriff and Probation Departments Average Percentage Allocations by Year in 15 County Sample Sheriff Probation Other 100% 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 26 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full AN LAO REPORT just one source of funding for operation of county in any more granular categories than those used criminal justice systems. In other words, the figure in Figure 16. Even with the extremely high-level may not present the full amount of resources categories used in Figure 16, it is likely that some counties have used to accommodate the realigned money reported as going to sheriffs or probation workload. Furthermore, the receipt of realignment departments, for example, actually got passed revenues may have allowed counties to use through to other entities, such as community-based funding that would have otherwise been spent on organizations providing rehabilitative services. sheriffs and/or probation for different purposes. Conversely, it is likely that some of the money Additionally, the survey did not require CCPs to use reported in the other category is actually tied to standardized, defined categories in reporting how sheriff or probation operations, such as a contract revenues were allocated. This made it very difficult with a behavioral health department to provide to synthesize information across counties in a services inside the jail. consistent way and ultimately prevents aggregation HOW HAVE CRIMINAL JUSTICE POPULATIONS CHANGED OVER TIME? Previously in this report, we discussed various …And Declined Further Due to Subsequent factors that influenced how realignment was Changes. Because Proposition 47 converted implemented. These factors include state-level various felonies to misdemeanors it reduced the choices, such as the authorization of lease state prison population somewhat in addition to revenue bond authority for counties to expand reducing the jail population as described above and and modernize jail capacity. This also includes in greater detail below. Pandemic era changes also county-level choices, such as decisions by jail impacted the prison population in ways that were administrators on how to respond to jail population again similar to the jail population. For example, pressure. In addition, choices by individual to mitigate the spread of COVID-19, state prisons actors—such as prosecutors, judges, or probation temporarily halted admissions, driving a decline officers—impact whether and how long people are in the population. However, changes that both incarcerated and/or supervised in the community. predated and coincided with the pandemic have Collectively, these factors help determine the overall kept the prison and parole populations declining. size of criminal justice system populations. In this Notably, in 2016, voters approved Proposition 57, section, we discuss how state and local criminal which, among other provisions, expanded justice populations have changed since 2010, the CDCR’s authority to reduce people’s prison terms year before the 2011 realignment was enacted. through credits. Beginning in 2017, CDCR took Again, it is important to note that these trends are several steps to increase credits. For example, affected not only by implementation of realignment in May 2021, CDCR modified its regulations to but also the many changes to the criminal justice allow people with convictions for violent crimes system that have occurred since 2011. to earn up to 33.3 percent off their sentence (an State Prison and Parole Populations Declined increase from 20 percent) for maintaining good Following the 2011 Realignment… As shown in behavior. By reducing the amount of time that most Figure 17 on the next page, the prison population people spend in prison, Proposition 57 is driving a declined quickly after realignment—by about long-term downward trend in the prison population. 27,000 people (17 percent) between 2011 and 2012. In addition, Chapter 29 of 2020 (SB 118, Committee The parole population also declined substantially, on Budget and Fiscal Review) reduced the parole albeit more gradually, following realignment— population as it established an opportunity for by about 46,300 people (51 percent) between people to earn early discharge from parole for good 2011 and 2014. behavior after one year and maximum parole terms of two or three years for most people on parole. www.lao.ca.gov 27 analysis full AN LAO REPORT Figure 17 State Prison and Parole Populations Have Generally Declined 180,000 Prison 160,000 Parole 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 (Previously, parole terms were generally set at three about 196,700 or about 115,000 (37 percent) lower or more years.) than the pre-realignment level in 2010. County Jail and Supervision Populations Total State and County Criminal Justice Increased After Realignment and Then Population Has Declined. As discussed earlier Generally Declined. As shown in Figure 18, the jail in this report, the increase in the jail population population increased after realignment—by about caused by realignment was smaller than the 10,800 (15 percent) between 2011 and 2013. It then corresponding decline in the prison population. declined after Proposition 47 and again during the The same is true for the community supervision pandemic era. By 2024, the jail population was population. This is because prior to the 2011 about 58,300 or about 15,100 (21 percent) lower realignment, everyone released from state prison than the pre-realignment level in 2010. The total was supervised in the community for a period of number of people under county community time following release. However, under realignment, supervision increased between 2011 and 2013— people who complete felony sentences at the by about 27,500 (9 percent)—primarily due to the local level are not supervised after serving their creation of the PRCS and mandatory supervision sentences. Accordingly, as shown in Figure 19, the populations. The supervision population total state and county criminal justice population subsequently generally declined primarily due decreased on net after realignment—by about to reductions in the number of people on felony 36,900 people (6 percent) between 2010 and probation. Notably, Chapter 328 of 2020 (AB 1950, 2012—and has generally trended downward, Kamlager) reduced maximum probation terms primarily due to various subsequent policy changes. to one year for misdemeanors and two years for Over the entire period from 2010 to 2024, the felonies. Previously, misdemeanor probation terms total criminal justice population declined by about could last up to three years and felony probation 263,000 people (41 percent). The number of people terms could last up to the greater of five years or under supervision declined by about 175,000 the maximum sentence for the crime the person (43 percent) and the number of people incarcerated was on probation for. By 2024, the total number of declined by about 88,000 (37 percent) over people under county community supervision was the period. 28 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full AN LAO REPORT Figure 18 County Populations Increased After Realignment and Then Declined 350,000 Mandatory Supervision Post Release Community Supervision 300,000 Felony and Misdemeanor Probation Jail 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Figure 19 Total State and County Correctional Population Has Declined 700,000 Total State 600,000 Total County 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 www.lao.ca.gov 29 analysis full AN LAO REPORT DID REALIGNMENT IMPACT CRIME AND RECIDIVISM? In this section, we review research on the 71.9 percent of those released to PRCS were impacts of the 2011 realignment on crime rates and rearrested (2.6 percentage points higher than recidivism. Recidivism is a measure of the rate at the pre-realignment comparison group) and which people who enter the criminal justice system 56.4 percent were reconvicted (2.4 percentage re-offend after release. Because this research only points higher). They hypothesized that the covers the two-year period following realignment, it difference could be tied to an actual increase in is unclear whether the crime and recidivism impacts offending behavior related to a perceived reduction discussed below persist today. Given that there are in sanctions under realignment. Alternatively, they so many other changes that have occurred in the noted, it is possible that the PRCS population criminal justice system since 2011, it would likely be was monitored more closely while under county difficult to disentangle the impacts of realignment probation supervision than their pre-realignment today from other changes. counterparts under parole supervision. If that were One Study Suggests Realignment Caused a the case, then higher rates of recidivism could be Modest Increase in Property Crime. To assess due to a higher likelihood of detection of crime, not whether realignment affected crime rates, a PPIC necessarily an actual difference in crime. study identified a combination of other states …While Recidivism Outcomes for People that had similar crime trends to California prior to Sentenced to Jail Were Mixed… The researchers implementation of realignment. They then used found that 74.5 percent of people released from these states to approximate what California’s jail who were sentenced to either a straight or split crime rates would have been in 2012 and 2013 had felony jail term were rearrested (2.3 percentage it not implemented realignment. They found no points higher than the pre-realignment comparison evidence that realignment increased violent crime. group) and 54.9 percent were reconvicted However, they did find evidence that realignment (2 percentage points lower than the pre-realignment increased California’s property crime rate, primarily comparison group). by increasing the auto theft rate. Specifically, they …But Effects Varied and Could Be Different estimated that realignment increased the auto theft Now. Researchers noted that the results varied rate by 17 percent. This translates to an additional considerably between the counties. They roughly 70 auto thefts per 100,000 residents hypothesized that this variation could be driven per year. by demographic, economic, and geographic Another Study Suggests That People variation as well as differences in county capacity Released to PRCS Had Higher Recidivism and/or experience in providing evidence-based Rates… Using data from 12 counties representative interventions before realignment. Finally, the of the state, a 2017 PPIC study examined outcomes researchers cautioned that recidivism rates for two of the populations that were shifted from are likely to change over time as counties build the state to counties under realignment: (1) people capacity and experience working with these released to PRCS from prison and (2) people new populations. released from jail who were sentenced to either a straight or split felony jail term. Specifically, they looked at recidivism rates for these people in the two years following realignment as compared to similar people released from prison before realignment. The researchers found that people released to PRCS had slightly higher recidivism rates than similar people released from prison prior to realignment. Specifically, they found that 30 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full AN LAO REPORT KEY TAKEAWAYS Below, we identify key takeaways from our review this could increase overall cost-effectiveness. of the state and local experience with the 2011 Alternatively, if the amount of incarceration used realignment of adult felony populations. These prior to realignment was not preventing very much takeaways are meant to help inform the Legislature crime relative to its costs, then simply reducing when it considers future policy decisions related the amount of incarceration could have improved to the structure of criminal justice system cost-effectiveness. responsibilities, and potentially state and local Helped Address Significant Problems Facing responsibilities more broadly. the State. The 2011 realignment helped the state Improved Alignment of Incentives Within the to significantly downsize its prison population Criminal Justice System. Prior to realignment, and thereby reduce severe prison overcrowding. county decision-makers—such as prosecutors Absent such a reduction in the prison population, and Boards of Supervisors—were incentivized the state would have had to pay for significantly to prefer sentences to state prison, even though more prison capacity at a time when it was already it is generally the most costly option. A person in a deep fiscal crisis. Alternatively, it would have sentenced to incarceration for a felony would go had to allow the federal courts to simply release to prison, be released to parole supervision, and tens of thousands of people from prison. In potentially be returned to prison if they violate their addition, by reducing its spending commitments parole—largely at state expense. In contrast, lesser and shifting revenues to counties instead of sanctions—such as felony probation—are largely General Fund resources, the realignment created county costs. After the 2011 realignment, counties savings that helped the state address its significant bear a greater share of the costs of incarcerating budget shortfall. people convicted of felonies. Accordingly, the Increased Population Pressure on Jails, 2011 realignment helped to improve the alignment Particularly Initially. Jails faced increased of criminal justice system costs with the level of population pressure after the 2011 realignment government that has a significant role in deciding and responded primarily by increasing the whether to incur those costs. number of sentenced and unsentenced people Led to a Large Decrease in Caseload but who were released earlier than otherwise. a Comparatively Small Increase in Crime, Proposition 47 relieved some of this pressure. Suggesting a Potential Improvement in Overall In addition, state-financed jail construction has led Cost-Effectiveness. As discussed above, the 2011 to the addition of over 8,000 beds statewide and realignment did not result in a one-to-one shift of modernization of some existing capacity, though populations from the state to county responsibility. most of these construction projects were not Instead, it resulted in a net decrease—by tens of completed until after the most acute population thousands of people—in the total state and county pressure on jails had subsided. criminal justice population. Research also suggests Led to Higher Risk and Need Populations that the 2011 realignment may have contributed at the County Level. The populations shifted to to a modest increase in property crime but no county jurisdiction under realignment appear to effect on violent crime. This substantial reduction have relatively high risks of re-offending and/or in total caseload without a major increase in crime higher service and treatment needs. For example, suggests that realignment may have improved the people released from prison to PRCS appear to overall cost-effectiveness of the criminal justice have higher underlying risks of reoffending than system. However, it is unclear what ultimately drove people released to parole. In addition, with the this increase in cost-effectiveness. For example, responsibility of housing more people serving if realignment improved delivery of programs felony sentences, jails are likely exposed to higher and services designed to reduce reoffending, cost pressures and other challenges associated www.lao.ca.gov 31 analysis full AN LAO REPORT with delivering services to and providing security submitted information related to the implementation for a longer-term, potentially more criminally of the 2011 realignment, including responses sophisticated population. to an annual survey on how they allocated the Was Affected by Subsequent Changes, realigned tax revenues. This data may be helpful to Which Influenced How Its Impacts Evolved Over stakeholders trying to understand how a specific Time. While realignment dramatically impacted county is implementing realignment in a given California’s criminal justice system, subsequent year. However, due to the way it was collected, changes have also significantly affected it. For the ability to make comparisons across counties example, while realignment created population (or even over time for the same county) is very pressures on jails and led to early releases, limited. This made it difficult for the Legislature and Proposition 47 significantly mitigated these issues. stakeholders to provide oversight. In addition, while Accordingly, in considering realignment as it exists the 2011 realignment was expressly authorized today, it is necessary to consider how subsequent with an expectation that counties could achieve changes to the criminal justice system have better outcomes (such as reduced recidivism) than interacted with it. the state due to their greater flexibility to adapt programs and services, it is difficult to assess the Is Difficult to Fully Evaluate Due to the extent to which this has occurred due to limited Limited Information on County Activities and data on county activities and outcomes as well as Outcomes. Between 2011-12 and 2023-24, the inherent difficulty of knowing what outcomes the state authorized a cumulative total of over would have been absent the 2011 realignment. $100 million for BSCC to distribute to counties who CONCLUSION The 2011 criminal justice realignment appears the form of increased and more complex-to-serve to have achieved some of its goals, including populations. While the state authorized bond improving the alignment of fiscal incentives within funding to expand and modernize jail infrastructure, the criminal justice system and helping the state the earliest projects were not completed until address a fiscal crisis. In addition, it helped to 2014 and several projects are still not finished. In mitigate prison overcrowding, which in turn, helped addition, while—in principle—counties are better avoid court-ordered prison releases positioned than the state to achieve positive and/or a costly expansion of the prison system and outcomes due to their knowledge of and flexibility likely contributes toward a more well-functioning to adapt to local needs, it is ultimately unclear if this prison system. Moreover, realignment generated a goal of the realignment has been met. This is due net reduction in the state and local criminal justice to data limitations and the challenge of knowing population with only a modest increase in property what would have happened in the absence of the crime and no increase in violent crime. However, 2011 realignment. realignment imposed new burdens on counties in 32 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full AN LAO REPORT APPENDIX 1: CHAPTER 96 OF 2023 (AB 1080, TA) (a) The Legislative Analyst’s Office shall prepare (4) Information on post-release community a report, to be submitted to the Legislature on supervision practices, including caseload of June 30, 2026, evaluating the results of Assembly probation officers, responses to supervision Bill 109 of the 2011-12 Regular Session over the violations, including describing the previous 10 years, including, but not limited to, sanctions used and particularly the use of the following: flash incarceration, and programming and (1) The amount of funding received per county services offered. and how that funding was allocated, including, (5) Recidivism outcomes, as defined by rearrest but not limited to, the following categories: and reconviction rates after release from custody (A) Funding received by department or agency. for offenders sentenced under subdivision (h) of Section 1170, and those released on post-release (B) All types of facilities construction. community supervision. (C) The number and type of additional personnel. (b) The report may be based on data from every (D) Rehabilitative programming. county, or alternatively, a multicounty study using (E) Any other services. data from at least 15 counties representative of (2) Information on sentencing practices, including the state. the use of straight sentencing, split sentencing, (c) (1) A report to be submitted pursuant to probation, diversion, and any other alternatives subdivision (a) shall be submitted in compliance to custody. with Section 9795 of the Government Code. (3) The impact on the county jail population as (2) Pursuant to Section 10231.5 of the based on changes to the average monthly jail Government Code, this chapter is repealed on population, whether there were changes in jail June 30, 2030. release policies, and whether the county jail was under any court-ordered population cap. APPENDIX 2: REALIGNED REVENUES BY COUNTY AND FISCAL YEAR The total amount of revenue that flows to caseloads, overall adult population, crime rate, and counties to pay for the three felony populations other factors relevant to implementation of the 2011 is divided into two streams: base and growth. realignment. The growth formula allocates funding The total amount of money in a given year in the based on factors that reflect county performance, base stream is equivalent to the total amount of including sending fewer new commitments to realigned revenue collected in that year, up to the prison from one year to the next. In sum, the base total collected in the prior year. Any additional sales formula uses permanent percentages that are tax revenue collected above that amount goes into intended to reflect each county’s share of overall the growth stream and is distributed the following workload, thereby promoting funding stability year. The base and growth amounts are allocated from year to year. In contrast, the growth formula to counties using two separate formulas that were is designed to change from year to year based developed by the Department of Finance (DOF) in on county performance, thereby providing an consultation with the California State Association incentive for counties to improve over time. (Prior of Counties (CSAC). The base formula allocates to 2015-16, interim formulas were used to give funding to each county using a fixed percentage DOF and CSAC time to collect relevant data and that was determined in 2015-16 by incorporating determine appropriate metrics needed to develop measures of each county’s felony jail and probation the permanent formulas.) www.lao.ca.gov 33 analysis full AN LAO REPORT Realigned revenues by recipient county and fiscal year in which they were both collected and fiscal year from both the base and growth accounts distributed. Growth account revenues are listed by can be downloaded from the online version of this the fiscal year in which they were collected. report. Base account revenues are listed by the APPENDIX 3: JAIL CONSTRUCTION FINANCING Since 2007, the state has authorized about in the initial round. As shown in Figures 1 and 2, $2.5 billion in General Fund-backed lease revenue a total of 53 awards have been made with some bonds to fund the construction and modernization counties receiving more than one. As of September of county jails. These funds have been awarded 8, 2025, projects associated with 36 awards were to counties through a competitive program completed, yielding a net capacity gain of 8,266 administered by the Board of State and Community beds. Projects associated with the remaining 17 Corrections. In some cases, counties that were awards were not yet completed and are expected initially awarded bond funds later relinquished to yield a net capacity increase of 151 beds. A total them (such as because construction bids or of 18 counties received no bond funding for jail estimated operational costs were higher than construction through these awards. Of that amount, anticipated). Relinquished funds are typically ten received awards they later relinquished, three offered to counties who had applied but did not applied for bond funds but were not successful, receive funding (or only received partial funding) and five did not apply for funds. 34 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full AN LAO REPORT Appendix 3, Figure 1 Jail Construction Projects Completed as of September 8, 2025 Award (in Millions Net County of Dollars) Bed Gain Year Completed San Bernardino $100.0 1,368 2014 San Diego 100.0 788 2014 Solano 61.5 362 2014 Madera 27.8 144 2014 Calaveras 26.4 95 2014 Stanislaus 77.4 382 2015 Kings 33.0 240 2016 Madera 3.0 — 2016 San Luis Obispo 25.1 149 2017 Stanislaus 36.6 288 2017 Kern 100.0 822 2018 Imperial 32.5 274 2018 Santa Cruz 24.6 (98) 2018 Solano 23.0 — 2018 Napa 13.5 — 2018 Kings 18.7 24 2018 Tulare 60.0 494 2019 Sutter 9.7 42 2019 Riverside 100.0 1,183 2020 Santa Barbara 80.0 316 2021 Yolo 36.3 (125) 2021 San Benito 15.1 72 2021 Tuolomne 13.0 32 2021 Tuolomne 20.0 51 2021 Monterey 80.0 576 2022 Trinity 20.0 19 2022 Ventura 55.1 — 2023 Yolo 26.2 10 2023 Orange 100.0 512 2024 Orange 80.0 384 2024 Fresno 79.2 (199) 2024 Plumas 25.0 (7) 2024 Placer 13.8 (176) 2025 Napa 2.8 196 2025 Placer 30.0 — 2025 Napa 20.0 48 2025 Totals $1,569.4 8,266 www.lao.ca.gov 35 analysis full AN LAO REPORT Appendix 3, Figure 2 Jail Construction Projects Not Yet Completed as of September 8, 2025 Award (in Millions Anticipated County of Dollars) Net Bed Gain Status San Joaquin $36.5 256 Construction 99% Yuba 20.0 — Construction 98% Contra Costa 70.0 — Construction 98% Butte 40.0 — Construction 96% Amador 17.2 40 Construction 83% Tehama 20.0 64 Construction 78% Mendocino 25.0 60 Construction 75% Merced 40.0 — Construction 73% Colusa 20.0 4 Construction 70% El Dorado 25.0 -6 Construction 23% Mono 25.0 46 Construction 0%-5% Tulare 40.0 -110 Pending Contract Award Madera 19.0 20 Pending Contract Award Sonoma 40.0 — Pending Contract Award Alameda 54.3 -18 Pending Scope Change Modoc 24.5 3 Pending Scope Change San Bernardino 50.5 -208 Pending Establishment Totals $567.1 151 36 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full AN LAO REPORT SELECTED REFERENCES Bird, Mia and Ryken Grattet (2020). SB 678 Incentive-Based Funding and Evidence-Based Practices Enacted by California Probation Are Associated with Lower Recidivism Rates and Improved Public Safety. California Probation Resource Institute. Bird, Mia, Ryken Grattet and Viet Nguyen (2017). Realignment and Recidivism in California. Public Policy Institute of California. Grattet, Ryken, Sonya Tafoya, Mia Bird and Viet Nguyen (2016). California’s County Jails in the Era of Reform. Public Policy Institute of California. Lawrence, Sarah (2014). Court-Ordered Population Caps in California County Jails. Stanford Criminal Justice Center. Lofstrom, Magnus and Steven Raphael (2013). Impact of Realignment on County Jail Populations. Public Policy Institute of California. Lofstrom, Magnus and Steven Raphael (2015). Realignment, Incarceration, and Crime Trends in California. Public Policy Institute of California. Martin, Brandon and Magnus Lofstrom (2026). California’s County Jails. Public Policy Institute of California. Nguyen, Viet, Ryken Grattet and Mia Bird (2017). California Probation in the Era of Reform. Public Policy Institute of California. www.lao.ca.gov 37 analysis full AN LAO REPORT 38 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full AN LAO REPORT www.lao.ca.gov 39 analysis full AN LAO REPORT LAO PUBLICATIONS This report was prepared by Caitlin O’Neil with assistance from Claire Sullivan and Orlando Sanchez Zavala, and reviewed by Drew Soderborg and Ross Brown. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) is a nonpartisan office that provides fiscal and policy information and advice to the Legislature. To request publications call (916) 445-4656. This report and others, as well as an e-mail subscription service, are available on the LAO’s website at www.lao.ca.gov. The LAO is located at 925 L Street, Suite 1000, Sacramento, California 95814. 40 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE