Key Findings
- The Black-White imprisonment disparity in California prisons increased by 11% from 8.6-to-1 to 8.9-to-1 during the period from 2000 to 2019. Despite this, the largest disparity reduction occurred in imprisonment for drug offenses, with the rate for Black adults declining by 94% while the rate for White adults dropped by 90%.
- Changes in length of stay were the primary drivers of the disparity increase, while changes in prison admission provided a counter-balancing effect. The length-of-stay disparity increased by about 30% during the study period, while the overall admission rates disparity decreased by about 21%.
- Statutory changes to sentencing appeared to have had less effect on disparity. Analysis indicates that California's realignment bill had statistically significant effects on the incarcerated population, but not as much on racial disparity.
Research by the Council on Criminal Justice Pushing Toward Parity project shows that the gap between Black and White state imprisonment rates nationwide has narrowed significantly since the start of the 21st century. To better understand the trends and identify policies and practices that may drive them, the Council chose 12 states for closer investigation.
This brief on California outlines the key state disparity trends, summarizes the potential influences on them, and statistically assesses the impact of those influences on the trends.
Notes
Although this brief acknowledges trends and factors from the pre-study period of 2000 to 2009, the scope of the analyses is limited to circumstances present in the state between 2010 and 2019. This brief also acknowledges potential disparity trend factors that implicate variables beyond the scope of this brief. For more details on methodology, framing considerations, and limitations, see the supplemental methodology report.
Click here for an overview of California's resident and prison population demographics.
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
- Disparity ratios are a measure that compares imprisonment rates across two groups of people. A Black-White imprisonment disparity ratio of 3-to-1, for example, means that Black adults are incarcerated at three times the rate of White adults. A ratio of one indicates no difference between the two groups, or “parity.” A disparity ratio lower than one means that Black adults are less likely to experience imprisonment than White adults.
- New court commitments refer to prison admissions that result from a conviction for a new crime rather than for violations of community supervision.
- Rates are calculated per 100,000 respective adults. For example, the Black imprisonment rate is calculated per 100,000 Black adults. All rates refer to adult state prison populations; those in federal prisons and local jails are excluded.
- Parity refers to a disparity ratio of 1 (1-to-1).
Racial Disparities in California
Between 2000 and 2006, the overall Black-White imprisonment rate disparity1 in California fell from 8.6-to-1 to 8-to-1, and then increased to about 9 by 2019. In 2020, it increased to 9.6, largely due to responses to the COVID-19 pandemic that lowered admission rates and increased releases. The imprisonment rate disparity ratios for violent and property crimes followed a similar pattern to the overall trends. The drug offense disparity ratio, however, differed, increasing from 9 to 11 from 2000 to 2008 before decreasing from 11 to 5 by 2019 (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Black and White Imprisonment Rate Disparity Ratios by Major Offense Category, 2000–2020
Change in overall imprisonment disparity fluctuated with differences in Black and White imprisonment rates. From 2000 to 2008, the overall Black and White imprisonment rates fell to different extents (by 6% and 3%, respectively), leading to a drop in disparity during this period (Figure 2). After 2008, when the overall White imprisonment rate fell faster than the overall Black rate, the overall Black-White disparity increased. Unlike the large decreases in imprisonment rates for property and drug offenses, the Black and White imprisonment rates for violent crimes held relatively steady over the 2000 to 2019 period, increasing slightly through 2010 before declining slightly through 2019. Due primarily to responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, the Black drug offense imprisonment rate fell by 97%, to 23 per 100,000 people; the White drug offense imprisonment rate fell by a comparable 96%, to 4 per 100,000 people.
Figure 2: Black and White Imprisonment Rates by Major Offense Category, 2000–2020
Because of the differential growth rates of imprisonment across offense categories, the race-specific composition of the prison population changed. The share of the Black and White incarcerated populations held for violent offenses achieved large majorities by 2020. For Black people, the share held for violent crimes rose from 47% to 79% between 2000 to 2019, and then bumped up to 85% in 2020. For White people, the share held for violent offenses increased from 40% to 69% in 2019 and then climbed to 79% in 2020 (Figure 3). As a result, the shares of people held for property and drug crimes fell.
Figure 3: Shares of Incarcerated Population by Race, 2000 and 2019
Disparity in Prison Admissions and Length of Stay
Overall and for violent and property offenses, admission rate disparity fell by comparable proportions over the period from 2000 to 2020 (Figure 4). For example, the overall admission rate disparity ratio fell from about 8 in 2000 to almost 6 in 2010; following an increase to 7 from 2010 to 2012, admission rate disparity then fell to 5.3 in 2020. For drug crimes, admission rate disparity fell from about 9 to 3 between 2008 and 2020.
Figure 4: Black-White Admissions Rate Disparity by Offense Category, 2000–2020
Although disparity in admission rates trended downward, disparity in length of stay—overall and by some offense categories—trended upward. In 2000, Black people admitted to prison could expect to stay in prison about the same length of time as their White counterparts (Figure 5). By 2019, the Black-White disparity in overall length of stay increased and Black people could expect to serve about 20% more time in prison than their White counterparts. The widening of disparity in overall length of stay is attributed to increases in disparity for both violent and property offenses. In 2019, Black people admitted to prison for a violent or property crime could expect to serve about 10% more time than their White counterparts. There was no change, however, in expected length of stay for drug offenses between Black and White people during this time; in 2019, Black and White people admitted to prison could expect to serve the same amount of time.
Figure 5: Disparity in Length of Stay by Offense Category, 2000–2019
New Court Commitments per Arrest
New court commitment decisions contributed to admission rate disparity for drug offenses but not for violent or property crimes in California. Figure 6a shows the resident population-based disparity in new court commitments, by offense type. The trend generally follows the same trajectory as admissions disparity. Figure 6b details the arrest rate disparity for violent, property, and drug offenses; Figure 6c shows the new court commitment to arrest rate disparity for these same offenses.
Figure 6a: Disparity in New Court Commitments per Resident Population
The disparity in arrest rates for violent and property crimes remained relatively constant from 2000 to 2020 (Figure 6b); for drug offenses, the arrest rate disparity fell from 2-to-1 to parity. By contrast, the disparity ratio in new court commitments per arrest for drug offenses generally increased during the study period, rising sharply immediately following California’s realignment (described below) in 2011 (Figure 6c). For violent and property crimes, the new court commitment process did not contribute significantly to the overall, population-based admission rate. The opposite was true for drug offenses, where disparity in new court commitments per arrest was greater than the corresponding arrest rate disparity, indicating that court processes added to disparity in admissions.
Figure 6b: Disparity in Arrest Rates
Figure 6c: Disparity in New Court Commitments per Arrest
Potential Disparity Trend Factors
California is unique among states because of its large incarcerated population, which exerts an outsized effect on national corrections data, and because of the several major law and policy changes made during the last decade, through legislation as well as voter-approved ballot initiatives. California is also an example of a state that has featured single-party legislative and executive control since 2011.
Political Context
Politically, both chambers of California’s state legislature have been under continuous Democratic control since 1970. Democrats also held the governor’s seat at the start of the century, with Gray Davis in office. But a voter recall in October 2023, just a few months into his second term, ousted Davis and led to the election of Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger. Following two terms by Schwarzenegger, Democrats regained the seat when Jerry Brown was elected governor, a position he also held from 1975 to 1983. By many stakeholder accounts, when Brown became governor for a second time in 2011, he attempted to reverse several “tough-on-crime” policies he had championed decades earlier. Democrat Gavin Newsom succeeded Brown and remains in office.
Practice Reforms
California’s prison population increased from 2000 to 2008, driven by the state’s determinate sentencing framework, which took effect in the 1970s. In 2009, the state was subject to several lawsuits, ultimately leading to a federal court ruling finding that overcrowding was a key reason preventing California from providing constitutionally adequate healthcare in its prisons. The ruling, upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011, ordered the state to reduce the prison population from 190% of design capacity to no more than 138% of design capacity, the minimum deemed necessary for the system to provide adequate medical and mental health care. Based on population numbers at the time, that meant a reduction of almost 40,000 people behind bars. Concurrent with statutory reforms designed to comply with the court directive, there were fundamental changes to supervision for people on probation and parole. For example, included in the realignment laws in 2011 (see Statutory Reforms, below) was the creation of the Post Release Community Supervision Programs, which provided annual block grants to counties to supervise individuals who otherwise would have entered state prisons. Stakeholders report that as a result of these programs, supervision practices changed significantly to put a larger focus on rehabilitation, though implementation and outcomes varied widely by county.
Statutory Reforms
The federal court overcrowding ruling led to a series of laws in 2011, broadly referred to as “realignment,” that were explicitly intended to reduce California’s state prison population.2 AB 109, and its companion bill AB 117, shifted the responsibility for managing and supervising people convicted of non-serious, non-violent, and non-sexual felony offenses – referred to as “triple non” felonies – from the state to county governments, sometimes shifting them from prison to jail incarceration, with attendant shorter lengths of stay. Realignment also transferred post-release supervision from state parole to county probation for people convicted of such crimes. Finally, realignment shifted responsibility for conducting both parole and probation revocation hearings to trial courts. Notably, realignment was not intended solely to reduce the prison population, but also to reduce the length of time these “triple-nons” would spend incarcerated in local jails. This was done by introducing a strong presumption of split sentences (a combination of jail incarceration and probation), as well as a cap on the length of time people convicted of “triple-nons” could spend in jail if they violated the conditions of their community supervision. The same federal court that ordered realignment later found in 2012 that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilition had not yet achieved the required 138% of design capacity, leading to the passage of ballot measures to further reduce prison population sizes. Proposition 36 narrowed the “third strike” offense to violent or serious felonies and Proposition 47 enacted a broad reclassification of six common low-level crimes as misdemeanors. Significantly, Proposition 47 also featured reinvestment provisions, which required that money saved from decarceration be reinvested in recidivism reduction and behavioral health programs. After the implementation of Proposition 47, the state prison population fell below 138% of design capacity, putting the state in compliance with the federal court order some six years after its issuance. Despite the resolution of federal litigation, California passed several additional laws between 2016 and 2019 that stakeholders cited as likely to have had a significant effect on the prison population. One change came in 2016 via Proposition 57, which significantly pushed up the parole eligibility date for certain incarcerated people and gave broad authority to the California Board of Parole Hearings to establish additional sentencing credits. Another change, this time via AB 333, reduced the prison time automatically tacked on to prison sentences by many of California’s gang enhancements. Notably, stakeholders report that some of the changes to California law during the past decade were made with the explicit intent to reduce racial disparities. For example, the authors of Proposition 47 believed that its reclassification of certain misdemeanors would narrow racial disparities in prison. Likewise, discussions surrounding the alterations to gang and firearm enhancements, made in 2019 and beyond, included evidence that gang enhancements had a disproportionately negative impact on Black and Hispanic defendants. Between 2009 and 2022, California passed or implemented 41 bills (containing 90 provisions) that included changes to criminal sentencing. These bills were reviewed for inclusion in this analysis based on targeted populations, scope, and content, yielding 31 bills for further study.3 A review of the 31 candidate bills produced eight themes that characterized sentencing reform in California during the study period. Based solely on the frequency of the themes, sentencing reforms in California were dominated by those that focused on:
- increasing or decreasing sentencing severity (28 laws)
Less prevalent were reforms that focused on:
- expanding or restricting the discretion of criminal justice agency actors (five laws)
- treatment programming (four laws)
- sentence review and recall (three laws)
- people committing repeat offenses (two laws)
- good time or early release (one law)
- bail/pretrial release (one law)
- creating new offense categories (one law)
Sixteen bills focused on specific offense classes, and the remainder broadly applied to justice-involved groups (e.g., probationers and parolees) or special populations (e.g., veterans and females). Of those focused on specific offenses, eight bills targeted drug offending, four focused on violent offenses, three were directed at human/sex crimes, and one targeted theft and property offenses. Many of the provisions in the 31 candidate bills were beyond the scope of the study data. Because of this, the following analysis only addresses subsets of reforms whose elements could be measured:
- AB 109 (April 2011), California’s prison realignment bill, which shifted to counties many responsibilities for lower-level offense convictions that previously would have gone to state prison.
- AB 1844 (September 2010), a bill that increased penalties for various sex and sexual assault offenses, including those against a minor.
- AB 27 (January 2010), which increased the amount of damage required to qualify for aggravated arson.
- SB 212 (August 2015), a bill that adjusts categorization of aggravating factors for methamphetamine and cannabis production offenses.
Analysis
By many accounts, including the analyses described herein, AB 109 had the largest impact on the California prison population and was the most salient reform implemented during the study period. The following section describes the effects of AB 109 on admissions and releases, on racial disparities in admissions, and on sentences imposed. It also addresses the impacts of several other reforms.
AB 109 (a.k.a. "Realignment")
The California Realignment bill was associated with immediate changes in the flow of people into and out of the California state prison system. New court commitments fell by 25% after implementation, and prison admissions for technical parole violations fell to nearly zero (Figure 7). Releases of people who were admitted under a new court commitment decreased less rapidly than admissions (given the additional time that persons committed must serve until released), but within a year of AB 109, releases of new court commitments fell to a level that was about 40% of the average monthly number of such releases. Releases of people who were admitted on a technical parole violation fell to zero within a few months of the law’s implementation.
Figure 7a: Monthly Admissions Before and After AB 109 Implementation
Figure 7b: Monthly Releases Before and After AB 109 Implementation
Figure 7c: Monthly New Court Commitments Before and After AB 109 Implementation, by Race
Figure 7d: Monthly New Court Commitment Releases Before and After AB 109 Implementation, by Race
For Black and White people, the admission and release patterns across all offense categories mirrored those for all people irrespective of race or ethnic origin. New court commitments for White people fell by a slightly larger amount than for their Black counterparts in the month that AB 109 was implemented, and after that point new court commitment levels were comparable between White and Black people. A similar pattern occurred among releases from new court commitments; that is, releases from new court commitments initially fell by a larger amount for White people than Black people, but rates became comparable within roughly a year of passage. Table 1 summarizes the analyses’ findings of Black-White differences in preexisting trends and patterns, shifts in preexisting levels associated with the implementation of AB 109, and post-reform trends. All analyses used the regression methods and statistical tests outlined in the Methodology.4 All estimates in Table 1 are differences between the Black and White regression parameters (the degree to which a line slopes upward or downward). A positive post-reform trend difference indicates that the population outcome grew faster for Black people than for White people; if that difference is negative, that means a population outcome either grew more slowly or declined more rapidly for Black people than White people.5 Controlling for pre-existing trends in new court commitments and measuring differences in post-AB 109 trends, we found that immediately upon AB 109’s effective date, new court commitments for White people fell by a larger amount than for Black people, with 119 fewer monthly new court commitments among White people than Black people (Table 1). There was no difference in pre- or post-AB 109 race-specific trends when looking at new court commitments among all people.
Table 1: Analysis of Racial Differences in Effects of AB 109
Trends examining all offense categories together obscure offense-specific differences in the effect of AB 109 on admissions. Specifically, there was a larger immediate drop in admissions for property crimes and public order offenses among White people. For example, admissions for property crimes among White people fell by 202 more people when compared to Black people immediately following the implementation of AB 109. However, the shift in admissions that occurred after the implementation of AB 109 resulted in fewer Black admissions for violent crime and drug offenses. For example, there were 77 fewer monthly admissions for Black people convicted of drug offenses when compared to their White counterparts. No offense category showed any racial differences in post-AB 109 trends in new court commitments. Figure 8 shows a larger and immediate drop in White admissions for property offenses (blue lines) after AB 109 was implemented compared to Black admissions (red lines). After the implementation of AB 109, the trend lines are similar between Black and White people.
Figure 8: Admissions for Property Offenses Before and After AB 109 Implementation, by Race
In reviewing patterns of sentence lengths imposed, no statistically significant differences were found in post-AB 109 trends in sentence lengths for new court commitments (Table 1, above). One effect of AB 109, however, was a shift upward in the number of new sentences imposed for Black people convicted of violent crimes compared to their White counterparts. This resulted in Black people having sentence lengths approximately seven months longer than those for White people, although both Black and White people convicted of violent crimes both saw an increase in mean sentence length imposed (Figure 9). After AB 109 was implemented, length of imposed sentences trended downward slightly at similar rates for both Black and White people.
Figure 9: Admissions for Violent Offenses Before and After AB 109 Implementation, by Race
For new court commitments across all offense categories, the mean sentence length increased following AB 109, but with the exception of the violent offense category, there were no racial differences observed in the increases. Sentence length increases stemmed from the nature of the realignment, which shifted incarceration from prisons to jails for people convicted of less serious offenses (e.g., “triple-nons”). Because jail data were beyond the scope of the current analyses, the potential effects of AB 109 on jail populations are not examined here.6
Other Reforms
California also adopted reforms including provisions directed at the sentencing of rape and sexual assault offenses against minors, the sentencing of methamphetamine production near an occupancy, and sentencing for aggravated arson. Table 2 summarizes the analyses’ findings of Black-White differences in preexisting trends and patterns, shifts in preexisting levels associated with the implementation of other reforms, and post-reform trends. Apart from the number of people admitted into the California prison system for methamphetamine production under SB 212, there were no racial differences in effects.
Table 2: Summary of Statistical Analysis of Racial Differences in Effects of California Reforms
SB 212
Figure 10 shows the monthly number of new court commitments for relevant offenses before and after SB 212 became effective. There was a longstanding decrease in White people admitted for methamphetamine offenses that occurred well before the law was implemented. For example, monthly admissions of White people fell from 60 in 2000 to fewer than five by 2010, two years before the reform was enacted. Virtually no Black people were admitted for this offense either pre- or post-SB 212. The racial separation in methamphetamine admissions is consistent with racial differences in drug offending, where methamphetamine use, distribution, and production are primarily a White (and Hispanic, not shown) phenomenon.
Figure 10: Monthly New Court Commitments Before and After SB 212 Implementation, by Race
The long-term decrease in White admissions for methamphetamine production (preceding SB 212) explains most of the decrease in White admissions, where the difference in slopes (0.73 per month to the “disadvantage” of Black admissions) is associated with the pre-SB 212 decrease in White admissions. The trend in White admissions for this offense shows that the SB 212 reform was implemented well after the decrease in White admissions occurred, and that therefore, the reform was not the cause of the decrease. Rather, SB 212 appears to have codified pre-existing practices.
AB 27
Figure 11 shows the challenge of disentangling the effects of AB 27 from those of AB 109, implemented just 15 months later. Although monthly new court commitments for aggravated arson fell slightly for both White people and Black people immediately after the implementation of AB 27, these levels plummeted by 40% after AB 109 was implemented.
Figure 11: Monthly New Court Commitments for Aggravated Arson Before and After AB 27 and AB 109 Implementation, by Race
Similarly, sentences imposed for aggravated arson (Figure 12) did not change after the implementation of AB 27, but increased by about one-sixth for both White and Black new court commitments.
Figure 12: Sentences Imposed for Aggravated Arson Before and After AB 27 and AB 109 Implementation, by Race
Discussion
California’s Realignment in 2011 introduced what many have called “historic” changes to its punishment system, and according to this analysis, it had greater impacts on the state prison population than any other reform during the study period. The legislation had two main effects. First, it slowed White admissions into state prison, and second, the effects of AB 109 overshadowed the effects of other reforms in the analysis. Because of relatively greater White involvement in property crimes, AB 109 was associated with an increase in disparity for those offenses. However, the effect of AB 109 on disparity came from the larger reduction in White (compared to Black) property crime admissions but not through differences in sentences imposed. This effect appears to result from racial differences in involvement. Second, the pronounced effects of AB 109 obscured the impact of other reforms because it focused prison admissions on serious offenses and people with relatively long criminal histories.
California, like any state, has a distinct political and demographic history that influences the discussion of what does or does not work when addressing disparity in the criminal justice system. This state brief is one of 12 in the Pushing Toward Parity project, all of which seek to identify, what, if any, policy changes are associated with shifts in racial disparity and can serve as examples for states pursuing equity in their criminal justice system.
