California Prison Programs and Reentry Pathways (2024)

Key Takeaways

In 2005, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) was given a rehabilitative mission, which included providing programs to reduce recidivism by addressing the needs of imprisoned people. This report examines how effectively the agency has delivered on this mission by describing the education, employment, and rehabilitative programs available to people released from prison between 2015 and 2019, assessing program participation, and mapping underlying trends in recidivism outcomes.

• About 1 in 1000 people living in California in any year were released from prison during that year; 64 percent of over 37,000 people released in 2019 had participated in at least one prison program.→
• People entered prison with significant needs that reflect their pathways into prison. On average, people read at the eighth-grade level and had sixth-grade math skills. Over two-thirds needed substance use disorder treatment. More than four in ten needed cognitive behavior interventions and employment programs.→
• Program capacity expanded dramatically between 2015 and 2019. Participation rates increased across all program areas—doubling or tripling for some—but remained below an ambitious goal of 70 percent.→
• Programs faced challenges with accurate targeting. At most, 43 percent of people who initially tested into an education program and 21 percent of people with an assessed substance use need participated.→
• Recidivism rates are lower than before these reforms but remain high. Over half of those with prior prison histories and 43 percent of first-timers were rearrested for felonies. Likewise, 28 percent and 21 percent, respectively, were reconvicted for felonies within two years. Though we do not attempt to connect recidivism to program participation, stubbornly high recidivism rates indicate the need to enhance prison programs to improve reentry pathways.→

Based on information that has not been available before, we offer context for the role of prison programs in people’s lives by describing pathways into prison, investigating factors that affect program participation, and setting the stage to trace post-prison pathways. Each of these elements highlights aspects of people’s lives before, during, and after prison that determine which programs are available to and appropriate for them.

After the California Department of Corrections was rebranded the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) in 2005, a panel of experts was convened in 2006 to help CDCR realize its new rehabilitative mission. The panel recommended expanding program offerings and targeting programs to those with assessed need, with the aim of reducing recidivism by building social, job, and educational skills. Ten years later, two oversight agencies questioned whether CDCR had achieved these aims.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) and the state auditor found that people who needed in-prison programs often did not receive them. Even when they did, the programs did not achieve their aims, which include building life skills, changing during- and post-prison behavior, and reducing reoffending (Taylor 2017; Howle 2019). Both agencies recommended an independent evaluation of prison programs, which CDCR enlisted PPIC to conduct.

The problems LAO and the auditor identified are not unique to California. A 2016 national survey of imprisoned people showed that less than half had participated in education programs and only about one third had participated in job training programs (PPI 2022). Other state and federal prison systems also struggle to assess people’s needs and provide programs that address them (Latessa et al. 2015; Byrne 2020; Russo et al. 2020). Federal prisons did not have processes in place to assess need until recently. Even in states like Ohio, which assesses needs, the programs offered do not target them with evidence-based interventions (Latessa et al. 2015).

Prison programs have not been rigorously evaluated to determine whether they address the problems that landed people in prison and promote successful reentry pathways. Most evaluations are at least a decade old, employ weak evaluation strategies, and examine small samples for short follow-up periods (Byrne 2020; Duwe 2017; Nur and Nguyen 2022). We illustrate how we will overcome these limitations and lay the groundwork for evaluating prison programs in California by providing previously unavailable information about people released from prison, the prison programs that were available to them, their participation, and recidivism trends.

We describe all in-prison programs administered by CDCR between 2014 and 2019.During this time, California prisons offered programs in three areas: education, employment, and rehabilitative programs. Education programs span adult basic education through college. Employment programs include career technical education (CTE) and job readiness programs. Rehabilitative programs include substance use disorder treatment and cognitive behavior interventions that address assessed needs of imprisoned people, such as managing anger, improving relationships, and understanding victims.

California has a century-long history of providing prison programs

For the last 100 years, California has led the nation in providing education, employment, and rehabilitative opportunities to imprisoned people. Innovative programs were piloted in the 1920s and proliferated through the middle of the 20th century. However, by the year 2000, the state’s prisons had become so overcrowded that they could not meet prisoners’ needs (see Technical Appendix A).

Poor living conditions led to lawsuits and scrutiny of the prison system, which motivated the legislature and the department to change programs and their provision. The establishment of the Expert Panel on Adult Offender and Recidivism Reduction Programs (“Expert Panel”) in 2006 and creation of the California Rehabilitation Oversight Board (C-ROB) within the Office of the Inspector General in 2007 expanded programs and increased oversight.

In 2011, the United States Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that ordered California to reduce the prison population. That year, the legislature passed Assembly Bill 109 (AB 109), which reduced the prison population by about 27,000 people and prompted CDCR to revamp its plan to rehabilitate prisoners.

Since 2012, CDCR’s Blueprint has guided the program expansions and operations with the aim of increasing program participation to 70 percent of eligible people (see Technical Appendix A). The population released between 2015 and 2019 includes the first potential beneficiaries of this expansion. Between 2014 and 2019, CDCR expanded program offerings and availability to all prisons. In addition, the passage of Proposition 57 in 2016 incentivized program participation by giving CDCR greater authority to offer sentence credits.

About 1 in 1000 people living in California each year were released from prison in that year. Between 2015 and 2019, California prisons released 168,482 people—between 35,000 and 40,000 individuals each year, as shown in Figure 1. Ten percent were released two or more times, for a total of 185,310 releases. Most people participated in at least one program in prison. In 2015, 46 percent of those released had participated in at least one education, employment, or rehabilitation program. By 2019, 64 percent had participated.

People released from prison are more likely to be male, middle-aged, and Black or Native American

Average characteristics of released prisoners diverge from those of California’s population (Technical Appendix Figures B1 and B2). Released people are far more likely to be male. While just over half of the state population was female, just 7 percent of people released from prison were.

Most released prisoners are in young adulthood or early middle-age. Between 2015 and 2019, people left prison at an average age of 37 years. By 2019, the share between the ages of 25 and 44 had increased to nearly two-thirds of those released. By contrast, just one-third of Californians are similarly aged.

Black and Native American people are starkly overrepresented. Though Black people were 6 percent of California’s population from 2015 to 2019, they were 25 percent of released prisoners—a fourfold differential. Similarly, the share of Native American people released from prison held at triple that of the state’s population.

Description of the data

Our ability to characterize and investigate prison context is unprecedented. Detailed descriptions of the prison environment are absent from other studies of previously imprisoned populations, especially the rehabilitative opportunities available. Largely, these omissions stem from challenges accessing prisons and prison data, which has led researchers to treat prisons as “black boxes” (Nagin et al. 2009: 186). Likewise, prior research has near-universally neglected to examine variation in program participation and outcomes (Nur and Nguyen 2022; Beaudry et al. 2021).

CDCR has helped PPIC address these limitations by giving us unparalleled access to prison data, to which we have linked to other administrative data. The size and diversity of California’s prison population provides a unique opportunity to examine variation in program participation across key characteristics, including their demographic characteristics and program needs.

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Administrative and Supporting Data

CDCR’s administrative data includes information for a five-year cohort of 168,482 people who were released between 2015 and 2019. The data include hundreds of metrics related to demographic, prison history, testing, program involvement, job assignments, and rules violations (i.e., misconduct).CDCR has also provided hundreds of documents, including contracts with external program providers, policy memos, and fact sheets, which describe programs, operations, and data collection.

Program areas

The programs we discuss are administered by the Division of Rehabilitative Programs (DRP). Within DRP, the Office of Correctional Education (OCE) runs education, career technical education, and Transitions programs; and the Office of Program Operations (OPO) oversees cognitive behavioral interventions and the Cal-ID program.

We group prison programs into three areas—education, employment, and rehabilitative—so we can discuss similar programs together. The education area includes primary and secondary education, college, literacy, and special education courses (Technical Appendix D). The employment area includes career technical education (which are job training courses); Transitions (which has job readiness components); and the Cal-ID program (because having identification facilitates employment and programs that supplement income after release). The rehabilitative program area includes cognitive behavior interventions that address assessed needs—anger management, criminal thinking, family and relationships, and substance use disorder treatment—and bespoke programs that address other behaviors, as described in Technical Appendix E.

California Department of Justice Automated Criminal History System Data

The DOJ ACHS data includes complete California arrest and conviction histories (1945 through 2021) for the cohort members, and thereby allows for a two-year follow-up. To characterize offense types, we identify the level and type of the most serious offense per arrest event (if there are multiple offenses). Information about the ACHS and how it is processed can be found in the Technical Appendix to Harris (2023).

We present summary statistics in Technical Appendix B.

Defining violent crimes and identifying violent felonies

Major violent crimes include arson, assault, criminal threats, homicide, kidnapping, robbery, and sexual assault (Harris 2023). We define violent felonies more broadly than the Penal Code of California, which classifies violent felonies for sentencing purposes. For our purposes, we classify crimes as violent felonies to characterize their nature and level of seriousness, without regard for punishment.

Domestic violence illustrates the differences between our approach to defining violent felonies and that of the penal code. In both approaches, charge levels—misdemeanor and felonies—indicate seriousness. Many crimes, including domestic violence, can be charged as less (misdemeanor) or more (felony) serious. The penal code does not include domestic violence—even when charged as a felony—among violent felonies (Holden 2024). By contrast, we categorize domestic violence under assault, which we classify as a violent crime. If a domestic violence assault is charged as a felony, we classify it as a violent felony. If it is charged as a misdemeanor, we consider it a violent misdemeanor.

Whether people can participate in programs depends on many factors—and we can touch on only a few in this report. Between 2015 and 2019, the composition of the released population shifted toward a greater share of those imprisoned for the first time—most of whom had committed violent crimes—and people served increasingly longer sentences, which may have given them more time to engage with programs. Starting in 2014, programs became increasingly available across all prisons in the system as the state worked to provide rehabilitative opportunities to 70 percent of eligible people.

Pathways into Prison

We characterize the criminal histories of formerly imprisoned peopleto investigate whether CDCR offered programs to the people who needed them and whether other types of programs may be needed. In general, we can think about people entering prison along two broad pathways: those imprisoned for the first time and those returning to prison. By assessing similarities and differences in the prior circ*mstances of these two groups, we can suggest potential areas for program intervention. For instance, higher prevalence of certain types of crimes, such as domestic violence, can highlight a need for prison-based interventions to mitigate them (Hasisi et al. 2016; Stansfield et al. 2022).

Half of those released had been imprisoned previously

About half of released prisoners (53%) had spent time in prison earlier in their lives; about 10 percent had been sent to prison three or more times. However, the early years of the cohort were more likely to include prior prisoners: in 2015, 57 percent of those released had been imprisoned before; by 2019, 51 percent had been (Figure 2).

Most people recently committed violent crimes—and domestic violence was prevalent

In the three years before prison, the cohort members were arrested an average of five times. Three of those arrests included felony charges. Cohort members were convicted twice, on average, and once for a felony. By contrast, 8 percent of the sample (about 13,200 people) had not been convicted and 1 percent (about 2,200 people) had zero arrests in the three years before imprisonment.

Most people released from California prisons have violence in their recent pre-prison past. Forty-seven percent had been convicted of a violent felony in the three years before prison. Assaults were by far the most common type of violent crime; 57 percent of violent convictions were assaults. Domestic violence is the most common type of assault; at least 7 percent of the 2015–19 cohort was imprisoned for domestic assault.

Violence was more likely for first-timers than for those previously imprisoned

People serving their first prison term were more likely to have felony arrests and convictions for violent crimes (Figure 3). Nearly three-quarters of first-timers, but just under half of those with prior prison experience, had been arrested for a violent crime. Similarly, 59 percent of first-timers, but 35 percent of those previously imprisoned, had been convicted of a violent felony in the three years before being imprisoned.

What happens when people enter the California prison system?

When people enter California’s prison system, they undergo an intake and assessment process that shapes program participation by assigning people to prisons and assessing their program need. Before its mission included rehabilitative aims, CDCR mainly collected information related to institutional housing placement. In response to recommendations from the Expert Panel report (2007), CDCR began assessing prisoners’ needs so that they could receive programs to address them. Such assessments provide a window into people’s educational backgrounds, labor market readiness, and the challenges maintaining social relationships.

Reception Center

Intake of sentenced individuals occurs at designated reception centers within the prison system. Within 14 days of arriving at a reception center, people receive written documentation on the availability of programs, how program participation can reduce time served through sentence credits, and prison rules and regulations. Between 2015 and 2019, classification and testing processes could take up to 90 days, after which people were sent to their home institutions. During intake, reception center staff assess criminal records and life, health, and social histories.

Home Institution

Additional classification and placement processes occur after people arrive at their home institution. New arrivals meet with correctional counselors within two weeks to review intake information and to discuss their needs. Personal preferences, assessment results, and the amount of time a person is expected to serve factor into housing, work, and program placements. People meet with a counselor at least annually to review their changing needs.

The intake assessment and placement process can take several months. Most rehabilitative programs last about three months while certification via vocational training programs can take years; education programs are ongoing and depend on students’ own pace of learning and achievement. Most prisoners participate in programs and work prison jobs. All programs have long waitlists, and scheduling can conflict with jobs.

Time Spent in Prison

How long people spend in prison also influences participation in programs. People who serve shorter sentences may have fewer opportunities to participate in programs due to timing and scheduling constraints. By contrast, people who serve longer sentences may have greater opportunities to participate in programs, many of which aim to help people overcome the deeper job, family, and health-related challenges related to long-term imprisonment, such as extended absence from the labor market, dwindling social support, and inevitable aging processes.

Two-thirds of people were imprisoned for less than two years

On average, the release cohort members spent three years behind bars. However, the length of time people spent in prison varied widely, as shown in Figure 4. Fourteen percent of those released were imprisoned for six months, whereas 15 percent were imprisoned for five or more years.

People typically serve only a portion of their prison sentence

Most people who leave California prisons have served about 60 percent of their sentence (Figure 5).Section 2933 of the Penal Code, which was enacted in response to Expert Panel recommendations to provide people with incentives to work toward rehabilitation, allows prisoners to earn “good conduct credits” that can cut their sentences in half (Technical Appendix A).

Sentences have lengthened—which means people are spending more time in prison

California’s criminal justice reforms have changed why people go to prison. Returning to prison after a parole violation became less likely after realignment. Some felony property and drug crimes were downgraded to misdemeanors when Proposition 47 passed in 2014 (Technical Appendix A). As a result, people increasingly serve more time in prison after serious and violent felony convictions that carry longer sentences, as prescribed by the Penal Code of California. People released in 2015 spent an average of 35 months in prison, compared to 39 months for those released in 2019. Likewise, people released in 2015 were sentenced to 57 months, whereas those released in 2019 had been sentenced to 64 months (Figure 5).

People imprisoned for longer periods have higher program participation rates

People who spend less than six months in prison are least likely to participate in programs. Even those imprisoned for up to one year have lower participation rates than those imprisoned longer, especially in rehabilitative and employment programs (Figure 6). As described below, people typically receive education programs first, which may help explain higher participation rates in the education area. Options to work independently (rather than in a classroom setting) also contribute to higher participation rates in education programs, as shown in Technical Appendix Figure C6.

CDCR policy may have constrained program access for those serving shorter sentences

CDCR guidelines may have inadvertently limited access to programs for people serving shorter sentences. During our study period, the Division of Rehabilitative Programs (DRP) developed a “lifecycle” that illustrated ideal program timing for a person serving five years, which is the average sentence length. The lifecycle prioritized education programs, which people should enter soon after intake. Thereafter, estimated time to release matters: people who are within one year of release receive priority to enroll in employment and rehabilitative programs. In this respect, the lifecycle seems to have worked as designed: 75 percent of people entered programs in the rehabilitative area within one year of their release date (Technical Appendix Figure C5).

Program Availability

Whether people can participate in programs depends on program availability: where programs are offered across the prison system, during which years, and their capacity during those years shapes how many and which people have access to them. By 2019, all CDCR-administered programs became available in all prisons, and program capacity had increased in all program areas. However, most programs had lengthy waitlists.

Program availability varied by program, by prison, and across years

Program availability varied by prison between 2014 and 2019. For instance, primary and secondary education was available everywhere; community colleges increased the availability of college courses over time. Similarly, rehabilitative programs expanded from the 13 reentry hubs throughout the system.In addition, the capacity of programs across program areas expanded as the legislature increased funding for programs and CDCR worked to meet staffing and participation goals set in the Blueprint (Technical Appendix A).

Between 2014 and 2019, capacity for primary and secondary education programs increased 9 percent—from enough slots to educate 30 percent of the 2015 prison population at once to enough slots for 35 percent of the 2019 population. Budgeted capacity more than tripled for core rehabilitative programs and employment programs—from enough slots for 8 percent of the prison population to participate in 2015 and 30 percent to participate in 2019 (Figure 7).

Measuring program participation and targeting accuracy

The Blueprint set a goal of providing programs to 70 percent of eligible people. We describe program eligibility and participation and assess targeting accuracy: whether participants had assessed needs or competencies consistent with program eligibility.

Assessment results are key eligibility criteria

Needs and competencies are assessed via several instruments, including the Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE), which assesses education levels, and the Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS) tool, which assesses needs in several life domains that correspond to programs (anger management, criminal thinking, family relationships, and substance use disorder) and program areas (education and employment). Assessment results are often the primary eligibility criteria, but generally not the sole criterion. Other information that differs by program also shapes participation. For instance, assessed recidivism risk helps determine eligibility for rehabilitative programs.

We define participation broadly—and reasons for nonparticipation vary

Any indicator of participation (i.e., enrollment or completion), for any length of time, and at any time during a prison term counts as participation. People may lack opportunities to participate in programs. Slots may not be available due to low staffing levels. Work assignments can interfere with programs, especially for skilled workers. People who move often, especially across prisons or parts of prisons, may have fewer opportunities to participate.

Participation is mandatory for some and voluntary for others

If slots become available, people with assessed needs must participate in rehabilitative programs and people without high school credentials must take education courses that match their reading levels. Nonparticipation can lead to rules violations, discipline, withdrawal from programs, and loss of sentence credits (i.e., more time in prison). Qualified people can also volunteer for programs. Qualifications vary across programs, as described in the program area sections. For example, people cannot take college courses without a high school credential.

How do we measure targeting accuracy for programs?

Where possible, we determine how well programs were targeted by examining program participation relative to initially assessed needs and competencies. Evaluations indicate that programs are often targeted inappropriately: people who need programs do not get them, while people who do not need them do. In California, the auditor found that CDCR had not “prioritized those with the highest need [for programs] correctly,” which contributed to the “failure to meet any of the rehabilitative needs for 62 percent of the inmates released in fiscal year 2017–18” (Howle 2019: 3). We build on the auditor’s assessment by evaluating the accuracy of program targeting for all prisoners, rather than a sample, and using three measures that answer the following questions:

1. What share of people who first tested into this program participated in this program?
2. What share of people who first tested into a different program participated in this program?
3. Of participants in this program, what percentage first tested into it?

Ideally, people assessed to need programs will participate, while those without assessed needs will not participate, and most participants will be people with assessed needs.

Within DRP, the Office of Correctional Education (OCE) administers education programs, which range from adult basic education (i.e., elementary education for adults) through college courses and include supportive programs for those with special needs.

A recent study that synthesized research on correctional education programs in the United States indicates that they can reduce recidivism and increase employment. Incarcerated people who received education programs were 32 percent less likely to recidivate and 12 percent more likely to find employment after release, according to a synthesis of the results of higher-quality research studies (Bozick et al. 2018). Yet some of the included studies were conducted in jails, and all were published before 2012. Thus, the state has much to learn about the educational programs available to prisoners in the last decade and whether they also reduce recidivism.

Primary and Secondary Education

Elementary and high school courses are provided in traditional classroom formats, referred to as general population (GP), and via the voluntary education program (VEP), which allows people to learn on their own.In both formats, people follow individualized pathways toward demonstrating competency in areas guided by the College and Career Readiness Standards, a subset of the Common Core State Standards.The individualized structure allows new students to enter GP classrooms as others exit.

Adult Basic Education

ABE programs map onto primary school grade levels. ABE I spans kindergarten through third grade; ABE II fourth through sixth grade; and ABE III covers seventh and eighth grades. Intake assessments signal appropriate ABE levels. Participation in ABE is mandatory for individuals who read below the ninth-grade level and do not have a high school credential (i.e., a high school diploma or GED certificate). Nonparticipation can carry negative consequences, as described in the “Measuring program participation and targeting accuracy” text box.

GED and High School Equivalency

Individuals without a high school credential must participate in secondary education, which includes courses in language arts, mathematical reasoning, science, and social studies. Students earn a GED, high school equivalent certificate, or a high school diploma. Most take the computer-based GED test, which is preferred by OCE. People living in secure units and fire camps can take the paper-based High School Equivalency Test (HiSET).People within 40 semester credits of earning their diploma have the opportunity to satisfy state graduation requirements.

College

Individuals who have a high school credential can take postsecondary courses offered primarily by community colleges. College courses are offered through classroom-based instruction in prisons and correspondence programs. Participation in postsecondary education is completely voluntary. However, CDCR requires those who enroll to take transferable courses that lead to an associate or bachelor’s degree.

Availability of Education Programs

Education programs were available in all prisons between 2014 and 2019. In executing the Blueprint, CDCR hired over 200 new academic and vocational instructors, which expanded program capacity, as shown in Figure 8. Daily budgeted capacity for classroom-based (GP) programs held roughly steady between 16,000 and 17,000 slots. By contrast, VEP program slots grew from 24,000 to more than 28,000.

The legislature incentivized community colleges to provide courses in prisons

Before 2014, imprisoned students participated in college courses mainly by correspondence. Senate Bill 1391 (2014) incentivized community colleges to work with CDCR to offer in-person courses by directly compensating them. As a result, college courses became widely available in most prisons between 2014 and 2019.

In fall 2017, over 4,400 prisoners enrolled in face-to-face classes (Mukamal and Silbert 2018). By the end of the 2018–19 fiscal year, 24 colleges (23 community colleges and one CSU campus) offered classes at 34 prisons and four camps outside of prisons where inmate firefighters are trained (C-ROB 2019).

Assessed Educational Achievement

Though information on educational attainment is largely incomplete in the CDCR data,the department assesses people’s reading, language, and math skills upon intake. Initial Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE) reading scores place people without high school credentials into education programs. TABE scores range from 0 to 12.9 and map roughly onto grade levels.

Released prisoners had reading and math skills at the middle-school level

Eighty-five percent of those released had at least one TABE assessment. On average, released people read at the eighth-grade level and scored at the sixth- to seventh-grade level in math, as shown in Figure 9. Across each release year, the reading scores first assessed for each cohort remained stable, whereas math and total battery scores—which include reading, math, and language—increased for each cohort.

Participation in Primary and Secondary Education Programs

We present participation in primary and secondary education programs relative to 155,000 released people who have not earned a high school credential, and based on the first time they were released in each year. Four in ten participated in at least one primary or secondary education course. One in three people released in 2015 participated in primary or secondary education courses. By contrast, half of those released in 2019 did. Between 2016 and 2019, total participation in these programs increased from 43 percent to 49 percent, as shown in Figure 10.

Non-classroom instruction accounted for increased participation rates

Increasing participation in voluntary education explains participation gains. General population participation held fairly steady between 2016 and 2019, whereas those participating only via voluntary education or a combination of general population and voluntary education increased 3 and 4 percentage points, respectively (Technical Appendix Figure D2).

People who test into ABE are more likely to participate than those who test into GED

We assess whether people initially assessed at a level then ever participated in an education program at that level (Figure 11). We likely overstate the shares of those in need who participated (left column) and those who participated who were not in need (right column) because we do not examine reassessments.

Those who tested into primary education had greater participation rates than those who tested into secondary education, perhaps because people who test into the lowest levels receive priority for educational programs. Fewer than 3 in 10 people who initially tested at the high school level ever took a GED course. However, nearly 6 in 10 GED course participants first tested into this level. About 4 in 10 people who first tested into adult basic education ever participated in the corresponding course.

Within adult basic education, targeting is least accurate for ABE III. Just 35 percent of those assessed at ABE III participated, compared to more than 40 percent of those assessed at ABE I or ABE II. At 31 percent, ABE III courses also had the lowest share of participants assessed to need that level of education program. ABE III courses also had higher rates of participation among those initially assessed at a different level: 13 percent of people who tested into another level instead took an ABE III class, relative to 9 percent for ABE II and 5 percent for ABE I.

Regression to lower education levels is more common than progression to higher levels

In the case of ABE II and ABE III, we can ask whether participation rates among those who first tested into another level suggest progression—people are advancing through levels—or regression—people are entering or returning to a lower level. We find more evidence of regression than progression.

At the ABE II level, more than 6 in 10 may have regressed because they were initially assessed at a higher level—30 percent had tested into ABE III and 32 percent had tested into GED. Similar results hold for ABE III—and we do not yet know why (Technical Appendix Table D4). On the other hand, 38 percent of people who were assessed as ABE I participated in ABE II, which suggests that they progressed into ABE II. Likewise, 35 percent of those assessed at the ABE II level participated in ABE III.

Participation in college courses more than doubled between 2015 and 2019

Approximately 8 percent of people released from California prisons between 2015 and 2019 participated in at least one college course. Participation in college courses more than doubled from fewer than 2,000 participants among those released in 2015 to more than 4,000 among those released in 2019, as shown in Figure 12.

At the recommendation of the Expert Panel, CDCR began offering rehabilitative programs in all prisons between 2015 and 2019. The Office of Program Operations (OPO) within DRP administers these programs, which include substance use disorder treatment and cognitive behavioral interventions that address assessed anger management, criminal thinking, and family relationships needs.CDCR also offers smaller-scale programs that target specialized needs, which we discuss in Technical Appendix E.

Prior research suggests that substance use disorder treatment and cognitive behavior interventions can reduce recidivism (Duwe 2017; MacKenzie 2006). For instance, meta-analysis showed that people who received prison-based residential substance use treatment were 37 percent less likely to recidivate than those who did not (Mitchell et al. 2012). However, the included studies are more than a decade old—and research on cognitive behavioral interventions is even older, with most conducted in the 1980s and 1990s (Byrne 2020; Duwe 2017). As we shall see, most of California’s prisoners need these programs—and the state needs to know whether the programs improve in-prison behavior and reduce recidivism.

Substance use disorder treatment

The SUDT program is a cognitive behavior intervention that aims to minimize reoffending by reducing drug and alcohol use. DRP has endorsed Cognitive Behavioral Interventions for Substance Abuse (CBI-SA), which the University of Cincinnati Corrections Institute developed. The group-based program includes eight modules that build cognitive, social, emotional, and coping skills to reduce reliance on drugs and alcohol.Students learn about the linkages between thoughts and behaviors, how to recognize the risks that behaviors and settings can pose, and strategies to manage emotions. They then develop post-prison plans that include problem solving (UCCI 2021).

Anger management

Anger management programs help participants identify and process emotions and reduce maladaptive behaviors, such as aggression, impulsivity, hostility, anger, and violence. Through anger management programs, DRP aims to “help displace out-of-control, destructive behaviors with constructive pro-social behavior.” Though DRP did not recommend evidence-based programs, two common programs offered during our study period were Controlling Anger—Learning to Manage It (CALM) or Aggression Replacement Training (C-ROB 2015).

Criminal thinking

Criminal thinking programs aim to reduce criminal behavior by changing how people think. DRP recommends Thinking for a Change 4.0, which National Institute of Corrections created. Thinking for a Change focuses on cognitive restructuring, social development, and problem solving. Cognitive restructuring helps people pay closer attention to their thoughts and the risks they may pose. Social development cultivates social skills, including active listening, posing questions, giving feedback, and negotiating with others. Problem solving instruction focuses on strategies to change negative thinking to work towards productive outcomes in social interactions.

Family and relationships

Family and relationships programs aim to improve participants’ relationships, including with family members and romantic partners. For example, the Partners in Parenting program focuses on building communication skills between parents and between parents and children. Parents learn how to discipline children and modify their behavior. Through such programs, CDCR aims to promote healthy family values and parenting skills. Family reunification can also occur for those who have had little to no contact with family for an extended time.

Availability of Rehabilitative Programs

Rehabilitative programs became available in all prisons between 2014 and 2019 (Technical Appendix Table E2). As shown in Figure 13, the budgeted capacity for rehabilitative programs also increased dramatically. Substance use disorder treatment slots increased 124 percent; capacity for anger management program and criminal thinking programs grew more than 150 percent; and family and relationships program capacity more than doubled (C-ROB 2015, 2019).

Assessed Need for Rehabilitative Programs

During our study period, CDCR assessed rehabilitative needs using the Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS).The COMPAS assessment generates a score for level of need; this level of need is the primary (but not sole) eligibility indicator for rehabilitative programs. People whose scores reflect medium or high need can qualify for programs, whereas those with low need usually volunteer.

Ninety-two percent of those released had a COMPAS assessment (Figure 14). On average, 68 percent of people released between 2015 and 2019 had been assessed to need substance use disorder treatment; 47 percent had an assessed anger management need; 40 percent had an assessed criminal thinking need; and 25 percent had an assessed need for family and relationships programs.

Participation in Rehabilitative Programs

We report participation rates for rehabilitation programs based on the first time each prisoner in the cohort was released in each year. Participation in all rehabilitative programs more than doubled between 2015 and 2019 but peaked at just 19 percent of those released—and only for substance use disorder treatment.

Across the five years, substance use disorder treatment had the highest participation rates and family and relationships programs had the lowest (Figure 15). On average, 15 percent of people had participated in substance use disorder treatment; 10 percent had participated in an anger management program; 10 percent had participated in a criminal thinking program; and 6 percent had participated in family and relationships programs.

Most people assessed to need rehabilitative programs did not participate

Participation is mandatory in anger management, criminal thinking, family and relationships, and substance use disorder treatment programs for those with medium or high needs, and failure to participate can lead to citations for rules violations and other consequences; however, whether people can participate is conditional on availability—whether the prisons had programs and how many slots were staffed—and accessibility, or how many other people need programs and how long people will be imprisoned. People without assessed needs can also volunteer to participate. However, those with assessed needs should receive programs before those who volunteer.

Substance use disorder treatment was the best targeted of the core rehabilitative programs, as shown in Figure 16. Eighty-two percent of those who participated in substance use disorder treatment had medium-to-high needs. Even so, most people who needed the program did not participate. Just one in five people with medium-to-high need participated in substance use disorder treatment.

Most people assessed to need anger management and criminal thinking programs did not receive them, even as some people assessed at low need participated. About 74,000 people were assessed with medium-to-high anger management needs, and about 63,500 people had an assessed criminal thinking need.

Just 17 percent of people assessed with medium-to-high anger management needs participated in an anger management program while 34 percent of participants had no assessed need. Likewise, 18 percent of those assessed at medium or high need participated in criminal thinking programs while 42 percent of participants had low or no needs.

Family and relationships programs were the most inaccurately targeted rehabilitative programs. Just 11 percent of people assessed to need family and relationships programs received them. Moreover, most people who received the program did not need it: 60 percent of participants were assessed as low need.

Employment programs and prison work show promise for boosting employment after release and lowering recidivism (Hess and Turner 2021; Nur and Nguyen 2022). In their recent evaluation of Prison Industry Authority (PIA) programs in California, James Hess and Susan Turner (2021) found that individuals within the program who received career technical education, as compared to those who did not, were 15 percentage points less likely to be rearrested (35% vs. 47%) and 6 percentage points less likely to be reconvicted (15% vs. 21%) within three years.

CDCR’s other employment programs have not been evaluated.The Office of Correctional Education (OCE) oversees career technical education (CTE) programs, which are independent of PIA, and a job readiness program called Transitions. The Cal-ID program, which the Office of Program Operations (OPO) oversees, also falls in this area. Additionally, in future work we will examine prison jobs or work assignments, which are administered by the Division of Adult Institutions (DAI), and described in Technical Appendix F.

Transitions

Transitions is a bespoke job readiness program designed to prepare prisoners for community reentry by teaching them how to find jobs, hold jobs, and manage their money. In modules related to finding jobs, students learn to understand their work preferences, identify employment opportunities, and effectively present themselves and their skills to potential employers. Modules related to money management focus on budgeting, saving, and understanding current credit and banking services. Participation in Transitions is limited to those close to their release dates and who have a medium-to-high employment need.

Career Technical Education

CTE programs aim to provide prisoners with training that increases their chances of securing skilled jobs that pay a living wage after prison. The department offers programs that provide imprisoned students with opportunities to earn industry-recognized certificates, which can lead to apprenticeships and entry-level positions within their field upon release. CDCR offers programs in six career sectors (building and construction trades, energy and utilities, business and finance, public service, manufacturing and product development, and transportation). Through 2019, there were no eligibility requirements for CTE enrollment.

CAL-ID

Employment and housing “are nearly impossible to obtain” without an official form of identification (NRRC 2016: 2). Assembly Bill 2308 (2014) which created the Cal-ID program, tasked CDCR and the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) with providing valid identification cards to “all eligible” released people. Original eligibility criteria included having had a California driver’s license or ID card in the past; having a picture on file with the DMV that was taken within 10 years of release; having no outstanding fees; and being able to provide a verifiable full name, date of birth, Social Security number, and evidence of presence in the United States. Several subsequently enacted bills incrementally expanded eligibility and reduced fees associated with ID provision.

Availability of Employment Programs

Between 2015 and 2019, opportunities for prisoners to participate in employment programs expanded. However, employment programs expanded in different ways due to the nature of the programs: some became more widely available, budgeted capacity increased for some, and some expanded in both ways.

Transitions is a standalone program, which expanded when an administrative shift affected who operated the program and where it was offered. Before 2016, the Division of Rehabilitative Programs (DRP) contracted with multiple external organizations to provide the Transitions program, which was available only in select prisons. Thereafter, OCE assumed responsibility for providing the program, updated the curriculum, and began expanding to all prisons. By 2019, Transitions programs were available in all prisons. Accordingly, the budgeted capacity for Transitions programs exploded from 2,400 slots in 2014 to more than 20,000 in 2019.

The Cal-ID program is also a standalone program. Like Transitions, it was rolled out across prisons during this period. However, the Cal-ID program is not constrained by capacity because “participation” is an application process, not an instructional program.

Career technical education is an umbrella term that captures 18 instructional programs. Though some courses are widely available, others are limited to prisons with facilities to accommodate them (see Technical Appendix Figure E1). Between 2014 and 2019, the budgeted capacity for CTE programs increased 30 percent from roughly 8,500 to nearly 11,000 slots, as shown in Figure 17 (C-ROB 2015, 2019).

Participation in Employment Programs

We discuss participation in employment programs based on the first time each prisoner in the cohort was released in each year. Participation rates for all employment programs at least tripled between 2015 and 2019. However, what participation means varies across employment programs. For the Cal-ID program, participation is an application process. By contrast, Transitions and CTE courses are instructional programs.

Forty-one percent of released prisoners had an assessed employment need

Unlike rehabilitation and education programs, employment programs did not have formal need-based eligibility criteria during our study period. Yet Transitions and CTE programs aimed to help people with employment needs, as described above. Therefore, we assess how accurately they were targeted to people with assessed employment needs, as determined via the COMPAS (Technical Appendix Figures F5 and F6). We do not assess targeting accuracy for the Cal-ID program, which could facilitate employment but has other aims.

Participation in the Cal-ID program quadrupled

Between 2015 and 2019, 15 percent of those released—nearly 27,000 people—received a Cal-ID. During that time, participation in the program quadrupled (Figure 18). In 2015, 8 percent of those released had applied for a Cal-ID and 5 percent received one. By 2019, 29 percent of those released had applied for a Cal-ID and 19 percent received one.

Participation in Transitions accelerated after OCE began providing it

While the department was making the switch from contract-based to OCE program provision, just 8 percent of those released in 2015 participated in Transitions. Participation increased dramatically under OCE (Technical Appendix Figure F2). In 2017, 22 percent of those released had participated. By 2019, 28 percent had, as shown in Figure 18.

Participation in CTE was low and concentrated in computer technology courses

Participation in career technical education nearly tripled over time but remained low across release years. Even in 2019, just 12 percent of prisoners had participated in CTE programs (Figure 18).Participation was especially low relative to the variety of programs available.

Participation is higher in programs that are more widespread. In 2018, computer technology and electronics were the most widely available (Technical Appendix Figure F8). With nearly 3,800 students, participation in computer technology classes outpaced participation in other CTE courses.The next most popular course, electronics, had 1,700 participants (Figure 19).

Neither Transitions nor CTE programs were targeted to those with assessed employment needs

Transitions provides general skills required to succeed in the job market and CTE programs teach trade-specific skills. Although people with assessed employment needs could benefit from Transitions and CTE programs, just 24 percent of people assessed with medium-to-high employment need participated in Transitions and most participants (57%) were assessed at low need (Technical Appendix Figure F5). Similarly, only 9 percent of those with medium-to-high assessed employment needs participated in any CTE program while 73 percent of CTE participants had no assessed needs (Technical Appendix Figure F6).

Why are program participation rates so low?

We cannot yet account for all the factors that contribute to low program participation rates in California prisons. However, low program participation rates in 2019 reflect their starting point five years earlier. Before 2015, California and other western states trailed the nation in providing prison programs. In western states, national surveys of prisoners showed that people participated in job training and drug treatment programs at rates that hovered around 20 percent for the 30 years between 1986 and 2016. By contrast, participation rates in these programs did not dip below 30 percent in northeast states (Western 2021).

Earlier in this report, we highlighted a few factors that can shape program participation. Programs are not always available in all prisons and people often do not spend enough time in prison to engage with programs. Other factors also influence program participation. Prisons—especially those in remote areas—often struggle to hire staff to provide programs, which impacts program availability (Howle 2019). Prisoners also move often: up to 20 percent of the prison population can move on any day, which might affect whether people can participate in programs. Therefore, our ongoing research will investigate how people become eligible for programs and why they do and do not receive them.

Prison programs aim to promote successful reentry pathways by addressing prisoners’ needs and building on their competencies. Along with other life-course outcomes such as employment, recidivism indicates whether people are following successful reentry pathways. As CDCR formulated its Blueprint, the state’s comparatively high reconviction rates were concerning. Nationally, 37 percent of prisoners released in calendar year 2012 were reconvicted in two years, compared to 44 percent of those released in California in fiscal year 2012 (Durose and Antenangeli 2021; CDCR 2017).

California’s reconviction rate has since decreased. An average of 36 percent of people released between fiscal years 2015–16 and 2018–19 were reconvicted in two years (CDCR 2022, 2023a, 2023b, 2024). Greater program participation in the wake of the Blueprint could account for some of the decrease—but so could other factors. For example, some criminal justice reforms, including Proposition 47, lowered recidivism rates around certain crimes (Bird et al. 2018).Additionally, changes in arrest and conviction rates amid the pandemic likely impacted recidivism rates (Harris 2023; Premkumar et al. 2023).

In this section, we describe rearrest and reconviction rates to establish a baseline to guide our ongoing research. We do not associate recidivism outcomes with program participation. At this stage of our evaluation, we are still learning about the processes that lead to program participation and completion (see “Why are program participation rates so low?” text box). When we have that information, we can rigorously assess the relationship between prison programs and recidivism. Without it, we might misrepresent that relationship. In future work, we will estimate the impact of program participation on recidivism and other reentry indicators, including employment and health outcomes.

Nearly half of rearrests involve supervision violations and drug possession

On average, 62 percent of those released between 2015 and 2019 were rearrested for any crime. However, less than half of released prisoners were rearrested on felony charges and 16 percent were rearrested on felony charges we categorize as violent, as shown in Figure 20.

Nationally and in California, most people who are eventually rearrested are rearrested within one year (Alper et al. 2018).Half of those rearrested for any crime were rearrested within five months. Half of those rearrested for violent felonies were arrested within about 10 months.

People released from California prisons were rearrested 382,000 times within two years. Most of these rearrests were for less serious crimes. At least 47 percent were for supervision violations (31 percent) or drug possession (at least 17 percent).Similarly, of the released people, 15 percent were rearrested on a drug possession-related charge and more than 30 percent were rearrested for a supervision violation (Technical Appendix Figure G2).

A substantial share of rearrests do not lead to reconviction

Forty percent of those rearrested for any crime were not reconvicted of any crime.About half of people who were rearrested on a felony charge were reconvicted of a felony within two years. The same holds true for those rearrested for drug possession: half were reconvicted. Comparatively, 64 percent of those rearrested for a violent felony within two years were not reconvicted within that timeframe.

The lower probability of reconviction—especially for more serious crimes—is partly attributable to prosecution times. It takes more time to reconvict people than to rearrest them. Of reconvictions that took place within one year of rearrest, the average time between arrest and conviction is about three months.

People with prior prison histories are more likely to reoffend than first-timers

People released for the first time were less likely to recidivate than people who had previously been imprisoned, as shown in Figure 21. Fifty-five percent of first-timers were rearrested and 32 percent were reconvicted. By contrast, 69 percent of people with prior prison terms were rearrested and 42 percent were reconvicted.

Across offense levels and types, people with prior prison histories have higher rearrest and reconviction rates than first-timers, which aligns with prior research (Rosenfeld et al. 2005). Twenty-eight percent of those with prior prison histories were reconvicted for felonies, as were 21 percent of first-timers. Previously imprisoned people were more likely than first-timers to be reconvicted of all crime types—conduct, drug, property, and violent.

Previously imprisoned people were also less likely than first-timers to participate in most prison programs (Technical Appendix Figure G3). Their participation lagged at least 4 and up to 10 percentage points behind first-timers in all education, Transitions, and rehabilitative programs, with the notable exception of substance use disorder treatment. Fifty-seven percent of those with prior prison histories participated in substance use disorder treatment, compared to 43 percent of first-timers.

Rearrest and reconviction rates plummeted with the onset of the pandemic

Two-year rearrest and reconviction rates held reasonably steady in the three years leading to the pandemic. Of people released from prison between 2015 and 2018, about 63 percent were rearrested, 40 percent were rearrested for felonies, about half were reconvicted, and one-quarter were reconvicted for felonies.

Beginning with prisoners released in the first quarter of 2018, recidivism rates steadily decreased as the pandemic—during which Californians saw dramatic decreases in arrest and conviction rates—encompassed more of the two-year follow-up (Harris 2023; Premkumar et al. 2023). Rearrest rates for those released in the fourth quarter of 2019 fell 10 percentage points relative to the first quarter of 2018. Felony rearrest rates plummeted 13 percentage points, reconviction rates fell 8 percentage points, and felony reconviction rates fell 7 percentage points (Figure 22). As our evaluation unfolds, we will need to account for these underlying downward trends to ensure we do not attribute underlying decreases in recidivism rate to program participation.

In 2012, CDCR set a goal to meet the rehabilitative needs of 70 percent of eligible people in prison. Between 2014 and 2019, budgeted program capacity rose rapidly across program areas; and program participation rates increased sharply. Participation in primary education increased more than 60 percent and participation in secondary and postsecondary programs doubled. Participation rates for most rehabilitative programs also doubled, while rates tripled for Transitions and career technical education. Compared to people released from prison in 2015, nearly four times as many people released in 2019 applied for a state ID.

Despite significant investments in prison programs that led to steep increases in participation rates, achievement of the 70 percent goal remained distant as of 2019. Most people entered prison with needs that ranged from low educational achievement to high risk of substance use disorder. Yet just 9 percent of the five-year cohort had participated in any CTE program and just one in five participated in any core rehabilitative program. Participation rates for education programs were higher—averaging 40 percent across all programs and years.

Participation rates could be increased by targeting programs more accurately. Most people with assessed need for programs did not participate and some people without assessed needs did. At most, 20 percent of people assessed to need rehabilitative programs participated in them. Similarly, between 28 and 42 percent of people who tested into education programs participated in them.

Programs should also address the changing needs of imprisoned people, their families, and California communities. Nearly two decades of reforms have reshaped California’s formerly imprisoned population. Realignment had a profound impact on the state’s justice system that was “still unfolding” in 2015, as the effects of AB 109 comingled with those of Proposition 47 (Raphael and Lofstrom 2015). Realignment reduced the likelihood of being sentenced (and resentenced) to prison, thereby altering pathways into prison in ways that have implications for programs and how they can support people when they return to their communities.

Though people in prison for the first time became an increasing share of the released prisoner population, people with prior prison histories were still the majority of those released in 2019—and they were 14 percentage points more likely to be rearrested and 10 percentage points more likely to be reconvicted within two years than those released for the first time. Yet the previously imprisoned participate in most programs—with the marked exception of substance use disorder treatment—at lower rates than first-timers.

Most previously imprisoned people are age 35 to 54, and their reentry needs differ from those of younger people (Burke et al. 2022; Technical Appendix Figure C1). A key difference lies in “instrumental” family support or how families encourage reentry by providing housing and financial assistance; this support tends to keep people stably housed, even as they may struggle to maintain employment and desist from crime (Mowen et al. 2019). Older people tend to receive less support and they are more likely to reoffend when they do not have it (Western 2018). To reduce reoffending among older people who have deeper ties to the justice system (Technical Appendix Figure C3), prisons may need programs that help people secure housing and establish financial security, whether through employment or connecting people to social services.

Released people who do return home may bring violence with them. Domestic violence is prevalent among those released from prison and the reasons why are poorly understood (Mowen and Fisher 2021; Stansfield et al. 2022). In California’s formerly imprisoned population, assaults were the most common type of violent crime and domestic assaults were the most prevalent type of assault, even among older people. The high prevalence of domestic assault and its persistence as people age suggests that many families could benefit from programs specifically designed to mitigate it, though we appreciate the challenges of identifying and developing domestic violence reduction programs that work (but see Hasisi et al. 2016).

Yet substance use and abuse may pose the greatest impediment to people making the most of available education and employment opportunities in prison and after they are released. Among the core rehabilitative programs, participation rates were highest in substance use disorder treatment. Even still, only one in five people who needed treatment participated. Moreover, a substantial share of recidivism was related to drug and drug paraphernalia possession. Just six possession-related crimes accounted for 17 percent of the rearrests within two years of release.

Realignment provided people opportunities to reduce their sentences by maintaining good behavior in prison. As a result, people released between 2015 and 2019 served about 60 percent of their sentences. Forty percent of released people had spent less than one year imprisoned—and they were least likely to participate in programs. Similarly, California’s jail inmates typically serve sentences of less than one year and lack access to programs (Tafoya et al. 2016; May et al. 2014). Therefore, identifying feasible ways to help people serving shorter projected sentences enroll in and complete prison programs could also benefit California’s jail inmates—and we aim to identify such strategies in future research.

The preceding discussion leads to five main recommendations.

• The state may need to make stronger investments in programs to meet the needs of all eligible people.
• CDCR may need to adapt its programs to meet the needs of a changing population.
• Identifying and providing violence interventions, especially for those who will return to their families, should be a high priority for CDCR and the state.
• The state and CDCR should prioritize ensuring broader access to substance use disorder treatment.
• Efforts to expand and evaluate prison programs, especially for those released after serving short sentences, can inform efforts to expand jail programs and parole programs.

Since 2018, PPIC has worked with CDCR’s Division of Rehabilitative Programs (DRP) and the Office of Research (OR) to design and implement a robust, multi-year prison program evaluation. With this report, we laid the groundwork for understanding California’s vast prison program environment and the people who exit prison after experiencing it. Many questions remain unanswered. As our research progresses, we aim to improve program offerings, operations, and outcomes to help CDCR fulfill its mission to rehabilitate imprisoned people and promote the well-being of the communities to which they return.