ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Jan 16 Recording Uplaoded Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings


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

Join the discussion

  1. mike r

    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.

  2. jo

    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.

    • Janice Bellucci

      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.

      • Nicholas Maietta

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

        • Mike

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

        • Harry

          …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”.

        • Q

          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.

        • Nicholas Maietta

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

        • curiouser

          There. I helped ya out 🙂

        • HOOKSCAR

          LOL!!!! Get my thumbs up.

      • Miranda Veracruz de la Jolla Cardenal

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

      • td777

        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.

  3. Agamemnon

    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.

  4. Marie

    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.

    • David

      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!!

  5. mike r

    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.

  6. nvmike

    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.

  7. Jim

    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.

  8. PR

    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?

  9. Timmr

    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 the percentage of the prisoners that are released that commit a sex crime that is what you want to use. Why is this important? Because if for some reason they stop doing so many parole violations, it is going to look like the re-offense rate is greater, even if the number of re-offenses stays the same. They are only structuring the report this way so people will focus on the two thirds of registrants going back to prison and be able to say the “recidivism” rate for sex offenders is higher than for all other types of parolees.

  10. mike t

    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.

  11. MarkW-SF

    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 latter categories. Big news. If you think we can trust them to do right without continued pressure to do so and calling them on BS even illegal behaviors, you’re dreaming.

    SB448 passed the State Senate. At the last full CA Senate Public Safety Committee hearing in July, Anderson basically cut off public comment, then later spoke to the hearing room for several minutes to say, Contact us, call us, write us. We want to hear from you. We listen to you. We really do. We consider everything you say.

    So: there are some links below to a few of the key CA legislature committees we all reach out to. We contact individual members NOT AS CONSTITUENTS OF THEIR DISTRICTS, but as CA CITIZENS AND TAXPAYERS DEEPLY CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR COMMITTEE WORK. That is not only legal, it’s OUR ACCOUNTABILITY AS ACTIVE CITIZENS.

    In the representatives’ website contact form, if you are outside their district……simply put “Street” or “Avenue” in the Address field, and use their home district office’s zip code in the Zip Code field…….and you’ll go right through. This can result in getting the representatives’ actual office email address in a reply.

    Enjoy. Because you know, the job description of a Senator or Assemblyperson doesn’t include anything about citizens making them feel comfortable. In fact, when attending these committee hearings, I often consider that we as citizens should be up on the elevated dais, and they should be down in the table pit. The present format has such an English aristocracy air to it, don’t you think?


    Direct email/phone/address to CA Senate Public Safety Committee:

    Direct phone/address to CA Senate Appropriations Committee:

    Contact info for CA Assembly Public Safety Committee:

    Contact info for CA Assembly Appropriations Committee:

  12. MarkW-SF

    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

  13. Michael

    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.

    • MarkW-SF

      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.

  14. B

    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 contradicts the cherished narrative that RSOs are dangerous and the state is working to take care of the problem.

    Over the last three years around 8500-9000 sex offenders have been released from prison per year. About 5000-5500 return on parole violations. 45 returned last year on a new sex offense and in the prior two years the number was 111 per year. From a statistical standpoint, there is almost no difference over the three years.

    But what about the crime of assault and battery? In 2014 there were 9,234 released in the prior three years and 5,224 returned. There are no published statistics about how many were parole violations and how many were new crimes, but given the level of supervision of sex offenders on parole and the level of for assault and battery offenders I cannot imagine the same ratio of re-offence.

    I will leave it to others to evaluate the relative harm from a sex offense (which runs the gambit of rape to public urination) and assault and battery. But the resources and civil liberty assaults that we allocate to sex offenses are epic compared to any other crime.

    The statistics from this report are important, but it leads to more questions. We know the re-offence rate of the 8500-9000 sex offender parolees, but what of the 100,000+ RSOs? We know that most believe the re-offence rate is “high and dangerous”, but the re-offence rate with parolees suggests that the rate with RSOs is much, much lower. And the resources and civil liberties assaults are gigantic compared to the tiny benefits that registration brings.

    • Timmr

      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 the probation/therapy alternative? Billions of dollars wasted on a massive public works experiment, in exchange for less spent on education, health care, development of human and environmental resources? Is there anyone up there asking that question?

      • Harry

        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.

  15. USA

    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?

    • Joe

      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?

  16. charles

    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 have to violate people’s constitutional rights. But yet proponents turned a blind eye to it, just flat-out dismissed the DOJ’s report. So what do you think their going to do with the CDCR report? I ‘ll give 3:1 odds their reply to the CDCR report will be: “F-that! We don’t give a S#@! about that report. We’re staying down on this thing!” And the most scary thing too is the US Supreme Court who has the last say. I’ll give 5:1 odds that IF anyone could get them to even read this report they’ll have the same response. Which leads me to believe that something else is going on behind these SO laws. Something hidden. I believe SO laws are smoke and mirrors for something more sinister going on, or will go on. I say this because I just can’t see how seemingly intelligent men and women—judges and legislators—don’t understand how these laws violate multiple constutional rights, particularly the Ex Post Facto Clause and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. They have to know this. Also, they have to know that these laws protect no one—how can they? They only serve to destory the registrant’s and they family’s lives by disenfranchising, banishing, incapacitating and destablizing. Now, if that is the purpose of SO laws then these laws have got to be the most effective laws of this type on the planet. But you don’t people like this, it is evil.

    • New Person

      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 you can make an argument on three of the four principles of the 14th amendment:
      ii) No state would be allowed to abridge the “privileges and immunities” of citizens.
      iii) No person was allowed to be deprived of life, liberty,or property without “due process of law.”
      iv) No person could be denied “equal protection of the laws.”

      For section ii), it’s quite obvious that the “privileges and immunities” of citizens have been abridged. Registering after paying you debt to society does abridge one’s immunities as a citizen.

      For section iii), registrants are deprived of “due process of the law” as they are forced to register and be the first people to be questioned if a sex crime occurs nearby without any cause. But the forcing of persons to register is an unwarranted search about you. Do all peoples have to go in and register? If you paid your debt to society, then you shouldn’t have any of your privileges or immunities abridged (changed).

      For section iv), equal protection. Welp, do all criminals have to register? And do all criminals have living and moving restrictions? A DUI is a crime. Do DUI have to register? Are they not allowed to go by grocery stores or drug stores where alcohol are readily available? Are DUI’s forced to stay home on New Year’s day or Saint Patrick’s day? Do DUI’s have to report to every city or state they go to or be put on a national registry? Do DUI’s get their information shared with the whole world?

      Although the Supreme Court really focuses on not calling it a punishment, it does abridge the “privileges and immunities” of a citizen to where there isn’t equal protection and are deprived of due process by the implication you are always a criminal, hence the registration without a need for a warrant wherever you live or move to.

      Again, the Supreme Court based its decision on a false fact that 80% re-offend for another sex crime. Yet, there are a plethora of empirical evidence that refute it. In California alone, the CDCR founded those registered parolees who go back to prison that only 0.8% go back for another sex crime. That means OVER 99% of registrants do not re-offend for another sex crime.

      The states do not want to test the “punishment” aspect of the Supreme Court even though Alaska and Oklahoma have utilize the Ex Post Facto to rule on older registrants to find it is unconstitutional to its state. This is where using the fact the Supreme Court used false facts can save the Supreme Courts’ decision blunder via Writ of Error Coram Nobis. It worked for Japanese Internment camps, therefore it can work here as well.

  17. mike r

    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 a problem.

  18. mike r

    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

    • Timmr

      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?

Leave a Reply

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 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.  

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *