In this study, we compare the recidivism outcomes of felons sentenced to prison versus those sentenced to jail, jail plus probation, and probation alone. On balance, our findings show that jail incarceration results in the same or lower rearrest and reconviction rates than incarceration in prison. We also find consistent evidence that while rearrests are frequently higher for probation with or without a jail spell, reconvictions are consistently lower for similarly situated offenders than prison. These findings provide partial evidence in support of policies that move people convicted of felonies to less costly, more local, and less confining alternatives than prison.

California’s 2011 Public Safety Realignment has received considerable attention nationally as a watershed moment in the movement to downsize prisons. The present study leverages data collected in 12 California counties to provide the most comprehensive examination to date of how Realignment has impacted recidivism for the key offender groups targeted in the reform. We find small to modest increases in rearrest in three of four groups targeted in the reform. The fourth group experienced moderate decreases in rearrest. Moreover, all groups experienced decreases in reconviction, which gives credence to the idea that a significant reprioritization of who should be in prison can positively affect public safety. These findings point to the complex ways that reforms like Realignment can affect custodial and community-based supervision systems by changing incentives for law enforcement and the people who supervise offenders. Our conclusions discuss the implications for other states and systems considering similar reforms.

Place-based blight remediation programs have gained popularity in recent years as a crime reduction approach. This study estimated the impact of a citywide vacant lot greening program in Philadelphia on changes in crime over multiple years, and whether the effects were moderated by nearby land uses.

California’s Proposition 47 (Prop 47), passed in November 2014, sought to scale back punishment for selected drug and property offenses, making them misdemeanors rather than felonies. Although others have examined the impacts of Proposition 47 on crime rates, here we examine the impacts on a range of recidivism outcomes specifically for individuals convicted for drug possession offenses. We focus on the defelonization of drug possession because nationally evidence suggests that public and policy maker sympathy for reducing incarceration use is greatest for nonviolent drug offenders. Thus, the greatest relevance of Proposition 47 to the nation lies in its strategy of defelonizing drug possession.

This article reviews the major reforms in California probation policies in the last decade and, relying on newly available data, describes how those changes have reshaped probation populations. We discuss the research literature on probation workers, which offers some key insights to guide our inquiry about the law enforcement and social work dimensions of probation work. We then report data on how the nature of probation work has changed in the context of these policy and population changes, using statewide survey data on probation officers and supervisors.

Criminal records can produce collateral consequences that affect access to employment, housing, and other outcomes. Adverse collateral consequences may be particularly acute for adults with limited professional capital and social networks. In recent years, there has been an expansion of prosecutor-led diversion programs that attempt to curb the effect of collateral consequences. However, the expansion of diversion programs may lead to net-widening if these programs simply substitute for cases that would have otherwise been dismissed. This study assesses the impact of an adult, misdemeanor diversion program on long-term recidivism outcomes and the future amount of court-imposed fees and sanctions. The misdemeanor diversion program reduced reconviction rates but produced a short-term net-widening effect by drawing in defendants whose cases would normally have been dismissed. The net-widening effects were curtailed over the longer term as the program significantly increased expungement rates. The results were driven by younger defendants. Implications of this study for theories of criminal desistance and policies around expunging criminal records are discussed.

Judges receive limited information on how their sentencing practices contribute to inter-judge sentencing disparities which can undermine equity and the perceptions of legitimacy in the criminal justice system. Internal benchmarking methods like the one used in this study could inform judges that their sentencing practices are disparate from their peers and potentially mitigate sentencing disparities. Depending on the type of disparity that a judge contributes to, an internal benchmark system would highlight discretionary decisions and provide a feedback system from which courts and sentencing commissions could evaluate efforts to reduce inter-judge disparities. The approach used here could be adapted in states to provide regular feedback throughout a judge’s tenure and to help move judges that contribute most to disparities to have sentencing practices more similar to their judicial peers.

Prosecutor-initiated diversion programs offer an alternative to traditional procedures. These programs provide a second-chance opportunity to defendants, increasing the number of people exiting the criminal justice system without a record. But if diversion programs are used to supervise people whose cases would otherwise have been dismissed, these efforts could expand the scope of supervision, thereby leading to net-widening. This study provides empirical evidence on these tradeoffs by examining Philadelphia’s Accelerated Misdemeanor Program (AMP).

California has experienced significant changes in its criminal justice landscape since the 2011 implementation of public safety realignment—which shifted the management of lower-level offenders from the state prison and parole system to county jail and probation systems. The prison population has dropped dramatically, and though jail populations rose, overall incarceration levels have declined. One goal of realignment was to reduce California’s persistently high recidivism rates. Using data from 12 counties representative of the state, this report examines rearrest and reconviction rates after release from custody for two groups of offenders affected by realignment.

Recent reforms significantly altered the role of probation in California. In 2011, the state enacted public safety realignment, which shifted the management of lower-level felons from state prison and parole to county jail and probation. As part of this effort, realignment tasked probation departments with the supervision of certain offenders who were previously the responsibility of state parole agencies. These and other policy changes have placed considerable demands on local corrections systems. This report uses newly available data to describe the changing characteristics of individuals under probation supervision in California.

To further reduce reliance on incarceration without compromising public safety, state policymakers are currently considering reforming California’s pretrial system. Key questions for reform include whether the state holds too many defendants in jail pending trial and whether bail is an equitable form of pretrial release. This report uses newly available data to provide information about pretrial release in California and to give policymakers a better understanding of the defendants who tend to be released and the form of release they secure.