Can States Reduce Incarceration Without Compromising Public Safety?
Petek (2026) examined whether California’s 2011 criminal justice reforms reduced incarceration without increasing crime. He analyzed state and county correctional data, sentencing records, and previous research on crime and recidivism. Within one year, California’s prison population fell by approximately 25,500 people, while county jail populations increased by 8,500. The total population under correctional supervision declined by 36,900 people (6%) between 2010 and 2012. Research found no evidence that the reforms increased violent crime, although automobile theft increased by approximately 17%. Overall, the findings suggest that California substantially reduced incarceration with relatively limited consequences for public safety.
Why This Article Was Selected for The Policy Scientist
The relationship between incarceration and public safety is central to criminal justice policy, particularly as governments confront prison overcrowding, correctional expenditures, and questions about the effectiveness of imprisonment. Understanding whether incarceration can be reduced without substantially increasing crime has important implications for sentencing policy, government budgets, and community safety. This issue remains timely as states reconsider sentencing practices and correctional capacity. The report contributes valuable long-term evidence using extensive administrative data, although subsequent policy changes complicate interpretation. Its descriptive methods are appropriate, but stronger causal inference designs would help isolate realignment’s effects.
Full Citation and Link to Article
Petek, G. (2026, June 30). The 2011 realignment of adult felony populations: Results and key takeaways. Legislative Analyst’s Office, State of California.
Central Research Question
Can governments substantially reduce incarceration without producing corresponding increases in crime? This question is central to an evaluation of California’s 2011 Public Safety Realignment, which transferred responsibility for incarcerating and supervising certain adult felony offenders from state prisons and parole agencies to county correctional systems. The policy represented a major restructuring of criminal justice responsibilities, motivated by severe prison overcrowding, fiscal pressures, and concerns about the incentives facing state and local governments.
The evaluation examines whether realignment reduced the overall correctional population, how it changed sentencing and supervision practices, and whether these changes affected crime and recidivism. It also considers whether transferring responsibility to counties improved the alignment between correctional decisions and their financial consequences. A central issue is whether reduced reliance on incarceration can lower correctional costs while maintaining public safety, or whether fewer people under correctional control produce measurable increases in criminal activity.
Previous Literature
The evaluation builds on research concerning incarceration, deterrence, recidivism, and the consequences of transferring correctional responsibilities to local governments. Particularly relevant is research conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), which examined how realignment affected jail populations, crime rates, and subsequent offending. A 2013 PPIC study documented increasing pressure on county jails following realignment, including greater reliance on early releases when facilities approached capacity. This work established that transferring responsibility from state prisons to counties did not produce an equivalent increase in county incarceration.
Another PPIC study examined crime trends following realignment using a comparison of California with a weighted combination of other states that had similar crime patterns before the policy change. This research provided the strongest causal evidence reviewed in the evaluation, suggesting that realignment increased certain property crimes without producing a detectable increase in violent crime. A 2017 PPIC study subsequently examined recidivism among people placed under county supervision or sentenced to county jail, comparing their outcomes with those of similar individuals released before realignment.
Together, these studies provide evidence about three distinct consequences of reform: the redistribution of correctional populations, changes in public safety, and the subsequent behavior of individuals subject to different correctional arrangements. The evaluation extends this literature by examining longer-term administrative trends and the interaction of realignment with subsequent criminal justice policies.
Data
The evaluation combines administrative records from multiple California criminal justice agencies with findings from previously published research. Sentencing information reported by courts to the California Department of Justice documents felony arrests resulting in convictions and sentences to prison, jail, or probation. These records permit comparisons across offense categories, including violent, property, drug, and other crimes, before and after realignment.
Additional data from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation describe state prison populations, parole caseloads, criminal risk classifications, and reconviction rates. County-level records provide information about jail populations, sentencing practices, community supervision, and responses to supervision violations. The analysis generally examines trends beginning before realignment in 2011 and extending through 2024, with some correctional population information available for 2025.
The evaluation also examines county funding and expenditure information, including approximately $2 billion in annual revenue allocated to counties for managing the realigned felony populations. Surveys of county Community Corrections Partnerships provide additional information about how counties distributed these resources. However, inconsistent reporting practices and limited information about actual service expenditures constrain the analysis of county-level implementation.
Methods
The evaluation primarily employs descriptive longitudinal analysis, comparing correctional populations, sentencing outcomes, and supervision practices before and after realignment. It examines changes in absolute numbers, percentages, and the distribution of correctional responsibilities between state and county governments. Particular attention is given to the years immediately surrounding 2011, when realignment was more readily distinguishable from subsequent policy changes.
The report does not independently estimate a comprehensive causal model of realignment's effects. Instead, it incorporates findings from earlier studies employing more rigorous research designs. Most importantly, the PPIC crime analysis uses a synthetic control approach, constructing a comparison group from other states whose pre-realignment crime trends resembled California's. This provides an estimate of what California's crime rates might have been without realignment, strengthening causal interpretation relative to simple before-and-after comparisons.
Nevertheless, attributing longer-term changes exclusively to realignment is difficult. Proposition 47 in 2014 reduced penalties for certain offenses, Proposition 57 in 2016 expanded opportunities for shorter prison terms, and pandemic-era policies substantially affected correctional populations. These overlapping interventions limit the ability of descriptive comparisons to isolate realignment's independent contribution.
Findings/Size Effects
California experienced substantial reductions in incarceration following realignment. Between 2011 and 2012, the state prison population declined by approximately 27,000 people, or 17%. County jail populations increased by approximately 8,500 people, or 12%, during the first year following implementation. Thus, the increase in county incarceration was substantially smaller than the reduction in state imprisonment. Between 2010 and 2012, the combined population incarcerated or supervised by state and county authorities declined by approximately 36,900 people, representing a 6% reduction.
These changes were concentrated among individuals convicted of property and drug offenses, whose sentences increasingly shifted from state prisons to county jails. Sentencing for violent offenses remained comparatively stable. Over the longer period from 2010 to 2024, California's combined correctional population declined by approximately 263,000 people, or 41%. However, much of this longer-term reduction reflected subsequent reforms rather than realignment alone.
The most rigorous crime study reviewed found no evidence that realignment increased violent crime. It did, however, estimate a 17% increase in automobile theft, equivalent to approximately 70 additional thefts annually per 100,000 residents. Recidivism findings were mixed. Among individuals released to county post-release community supervision, 71.9% were rearrested and 56.4% were reconvicted, respectively 2.6 and 2.4 percentage points above comparable pre-realignment groups. Among individuals released from county jail following felony sentences, 74.5% were rearrested, while 54.9% were reconvicted.
Realignment also altered county correctional responsibilities. Counties received approximately $2 billion annually to manage transferred populations, while state-supported jail construction added more than 8,000 beds. Nevertheless, the initial population shift increased jail overcrowding and early releases, creating operational challenges that subsequent reforms partially alleviated.
Conclusion
California's 2011 realignment demonstrates that a substantial reduction in the correctional population can occur without a comparable increase in violent crime. The available evidence suggests that the policy contributed to reduced prison overcrowding, changed sentencing patterns, and improved the alignment between correctional decision-making and financial responsibility. However, the estimated increase in automobile theft illustrates that reductions in incarceration may carry measurable public safety consequences for particular offenses.
The findings also reveal important institutional trade-offs. Transferring correctional responsibilities to counties reduced pressures on state prisons but increased demands on local jails, probation departments, and treatment services. Whether counties achieved better rehabilitation outcomes remains uncertain because of inconsistent administrative reporting and limited causal evidence. Future research using stronger quasi-experimental designs, standardized county-level data, and longer follow-up periods could clarify how correctional decentralization affects crime, recidivism, public expenditures, and the overall effectiveness of criminal justice systems.
Comments