ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (4/17 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings
ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18, 2021


New CDCR Report Reduces Rate of Re-Offense to Less than 1 Percent

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) has issued a new report that reflects a significantly lower rate of re-offense for registered citizens on parole. The name of the report is “2014 Outcome Evaluation Report“, however, it was issued by the agency’s Office of Research in late July 2015.

According to the report, the rate at which a registered citizen on parole commits a new sex offense is .8 percent. This rate is based upon a study of 5,522 registered citizens who returned to prison over a period of three years.
“The CDCR report smashes the myth that most registered citizens commit another sex offense,” stated CA RSOL president Janice Bellucci. “It is the lowest rate of re-offense for any category of citizens convicted of a crime except murder.”

The report also states that 91.9 percent of registered citizens on parole who returned to prison did so because they violated a parole condition. Individuals on parole are required to comply with a broad spectrum of conditions, which can prohibit them from drinking alcohol, using the internet and/or possessing a toy.

The remaining number of registered citizens who returned to prison did so because they failed to register (2 percent) or committed a new non-sex offense (5.3 percent), according to the CDCR report.

CDCR Reports

2014 Outcome Evaluation Report

2013 Outcome Evaluation Report

2012 Outcome Evaluation Report

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please do not solicit funds
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Wow I really wonder how the court would react to these stats and all the other reports showing the registry is useless at best and counterproductive and evil at worst. Would they claim the low reoffense rates as a result from the registry or find the registry for what it is useless a waste of resources and counterproductive.

This is not going to be received well by the fear mongerers. I was fortunate to skate through the 3 years of parole without going back. I had a job making 80k a year and would have been devastated to had gone back. The parole conditions were ridiculous then 15 years ago, so I can’t even begin to imagine how hard it must be now.

It will be difficult for anyone, including fear mongers, to dispute the facts reported by CDCR. This is a state government agency that has no reason to misrepresent the fact that the rate of re-offense is extremely low. For those who doubt the facts, we recommend that they contact the agency directly.

You are wrong Janice! The idiots will CONTINUE to lie. 😉

Yes, unfortunately political hacks will continue making “I like to say…” statements that Judges will quote in their precedent settings rulings.

…And they been lying since the registry was set up. This sex offender thing is mostly based on lies from day one. Heck, when I was treatment, in the early 90’s, the Phd that operated a treatment program in Oregon stated, “that he treated over 100 SO and had only 3 re-offenders”.

I believe you may (probably) be right Nicholas Maietta. It’s been known for years that people in power positions abuse that power by accepting bribes which require them to act/vote in the manner prescribed by those paying the bribe; usually a lobbiest representing a group. I believe this has happened in many cases involving things like the internet identifier bill. Donald Trump made reference to this and nobody disputed this. These people will continue to pretend that the real facts/truth doesn’t exist. If anyone doesn’t believe me just google it. It’s there; it’s fact.

I don’t get thumbs down often on there, but i will remind those people that you realize that i was being facetious, right?

There. I helped ya out 🙂

LOL!!!! Get my thumbs up.

Facts cannot be disputed.
Reasons why the facts have changed, can be.

Unfortunately, I would have to agree with Nicholas. When the CDCR reported that the rate came in below two percent for all registrants, including those not on parole, they still continued to lie then, and they will continue to lie now.

Of course the authorities try to quietly slink this little factoid out more than halfway into the next year, hoping nobody notices.

Good for Janice for immediately jumping on this all too important statistic that contradicts everything people assume about registrants (that “it’s only a matter of time”).

Thank you once again Janice, for all your hard work and diligence.

You know the response to this will be the rates are so low because of the registry and harsh conditions and therefore this is ‘proof’ it’s working.

The fearmongers will harken back to that old trope, “Well, that number is false because most sexual offenses go unreported.” Same BS line they always use to defend their evil lies.
Nonetheless, I celebrate the new report’s findings and that super low re-offense rate!!

Yes Marie I’m sure that will be the argument but it doesn’t hold water since the rates haven’t changed in any meaningful way since before the registry was adopted so that argument is moot.

This is where the fear mongers claim that the actual reoffense rate is just underreported to the tune of about 90% “Everyone knows…”
This piece of information is HUGE, let’s hope it makes a difference or at least gets the “vengeance for victims” crowd exposed for what the registry is all about: shame and punishment.

continue watching and listening to media and politicians, the minds of those people are the ones that have to be made believers of the truth.

Does anyone think if would be helpful to send this information via mail to individuals on the Public Safety Committee etc. ie Leno, Hancock and or others? Runner? I mean the list could go on right?

65.2% of registrants on parole return to prison in three years. Of those .8% return for a new sex crime. The figure is the re-offense rate of the recidivists, not the re-offense rate of the total. If you do the math, that means that only 0.5216% of the total number of registrants released out on parole return for a new sex crime or about 35% less than what you are calling the re-offense rate. That is the more important figure. In other words who cares what percentage of the people returned to prison commit a new sex crime, it is… Read more »

They are some very creative liars!

With “re-offense” rates this low, I’m surprised victim advocacy groups are not pushing legislation to have these statistics stricken from this annual report. Maybe they will get to work on legally redefining what consists of a “re-offense” in order to support their fund raising goals like they’ve done with human trafficking.
Naturally, CDCR will use these numbers to show what a great job they’re doing of rehabilitating such fiends, which is akin to a rooster taking credit for the sun coming up.

I would never dare to inconvenience our esteemed State Senators (and Assemblypersons). However, there’s a difference between a Senator, and a politician. A difference between a Senator, and a lawmaker who breaks the law (The Brown Act’s open meetings, US Constitution, and Bill of Rights) to secretly advance a bill into law that is not based in fact or evidence, and does nothing for public safety (SB448). And finally, a difference between a statesperson and leader, and a political hack riding on the back of law-abiding citizens toward the next election. Hueso, Hancock, Leno, Anderson, et al fall in the… Read more »

I’d also start pressuring each committee member to start listing every single RC/290-related bill in their Contact Form’s Subject line drop-down menu. This goes for the CA legislature site as a whole. When you go on that site to search SB448, incorrect link comes up:


New CDCR Report Reduces Rate of Sexual Re-Offense to Less than 1 Percent

If our enemies bothered to allow facts to influence their feelings and/or opinions or legislative actions regarding RCs, we wouldn’t have to be battling these overly oppressive laws in the courts to begin with.

So do nothing?

Is it right the way it is? No.
Is it worthwhile to change? Yes.

Commenting only for myself of course, I choose to continue my part in Show Up, Stand Up, Speak Up. And join with others willing to do the same in a persistent tide.

When confronting the tyranny of government or mob, injustice, or hatred, it’s not the powerful or uninformed who lead.

There are two things going on here. First is the re-offence rate for parolees. Second is the re-offence rate of those off of parole. The statistics of this report speaks to the re-offence rate of parolees, but there are no statistics about the re-offence of those off parole. Isn’t that odd? The state does so much to restrict RSOs, one would expect someone to keep track of the number of RSOs who re-offend. And yet it is only CDCR that gives us any kind of number. I believe that someone knows that number, but will not release it because it… Read more »

I suppose the CDCR is not obligated to show statistics for those not in it’s system, but what about the re-offense rate for those, like me and a great amount of registrants who were sentenced to only probation? Could be that it is higher, lower or about the same? With the craze for mandatory minimums, people in the past had received probation for the same crimes that people now get prison time. What would it say about our incarceration friendly society if it were found that it had the same or even a less effect on serious sex crimes than… Read more »

Let tell you this. I live in a small city and the registering officer told me that “she has about 35, 290’s and most are long term and none have re-offended except for one whom gets pick-up for being drunk in public, a lot.” So, in the town the is number none.

Well, I’m not sure what to say. When I hear DA’s, city leaders and a variety of others stating inaccurate facts regarding recidivism, its very disturbing. This is a study provided by a state organization that deals with this daily/weekly/yearly. How can you argue with statistics. I’m planning on filing a Certificate of Rehab next year. Let me slip this in with the application. Oh, I had Summary Probation? Does that count? 20 years later?

Not understanding the question…

Of course it counts. Your criminal conviction is the one and only reason you are required to register as a sex offender for the rest of your natural life, pursuant to Penal Code 290. Same as the other 112,000 registrants in the State of California.

No better! No worse! Just is.

That is the law. What about mandatory lifetime registration is it you do not understand?

Great! These finding by the CDCR are just great indeed; however, these same facts have been out there for years. Researchers like Dr. Jill Levenson of Barry University, FL for example, and other prominent clinicians have been saying for years that recidivism numbers cited by proponents of SO laws were a bunch of crap! The US DOJ even said it in a report on SO residivism back in, I believe 2004 and it was completley discounted. What the hell? This is United State Department of Justice for crying out loud telling everyone, hey, this thing is not that serious to… Read more »

The main reason there is registration nationwide was because the Supreme Court deemed that registration was not a punishment – considering the re-offense rate is “frightening and high” of 80%. Now, based upon its passing and what is being conducted now, you can now introduce Ex Post Facto Clause because you have definitive proof of the increase in restrictions since when it first passed. The odd part about saying registration isn’t punishment, but if you don’t register, then it’s a felony. If it’s not a punishment, then how can there be a penalty? As for the 14th amendment, I think… Read more »

You know any other law that would have this much push back this much collateral damage and this many constitutional issues without any evidence of effectiveness and to be proven to be even counterproductive would never stand up in any type of judicial review. When laws are ambiguous in effect and need the courts are supposed to error on the side of the constitution. It’s amazing how just because the words sex offender is attached to these laws that courts would uphold them when there isn’t any ambiguity that they are ineffective counterproductive and are actually a salution looking for… Read more »

So how’s that work is it .8% of 100 or .8% of the total of 5522 ? Another words is it 1 person out of 5522 or is it approx. 500 out of 5522

Another way of saying it is it is very very low.
Wonder why they didn’t do a pie chart for burglary or the other categories of crime and show how many of them were returned to prison for a sex crime? I remember a statistic that showed that, in total numbers, burglars go out and commit more sex crimes than “sex offenders”. Therefore why aren’t they subject to having their rights suppressed for the public good?

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x