The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) agreed today to immediately stop using the FSORA tool for women on parole who have been convicted of a sex offense. In addition, CDCR has agreed to reclassify all female registrants as low risk within 12 months.
Further, CDCR will review all female registrants on a case-by-case basis to determine whether they should be reassigned from parole to probation which has fewer restrictions. These changes are the result of a lawsuit filed in July 2025 in which ACSOL challenged CDCR’s use of the FSORA tool, which has not been validated, to determine the risk of re-offense for female registrants on parole.
Due to CDCR’s application of the FSORA tool, most female registrants on parole were determined to be high risk. As a result, there were few places where the female registrants could reside due to a state law that prohibits high risk registrants from living within one-half mile of a K-12 school.
“This is a major victory for female registrants,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “ACSOL is pleased to help these female registrants while on parole.”
Also included in the settlement agreement between CDCR and ACSOL is recognition that female registrants on parole are ineligible for scoring on the Static-99R tool. That tool is used for assessing risk levels of most registrants on parole. CDCR also acknowledged in the agreement that there is an “absence of validated methods for determining a female’s risk category.”
Great job!
Now if only we could convince the same group of people to fully adhere to the Static-99R guide, and have the risk assessment actually decline over time as noted, instead of being used as a forever static number. How this hasn’t yet been successfully challenged is beyond me. It’s literally right there in the manual.
As always, excellent work Janice! We have been away from ACSOL for a bit due to personal issues, but miss and appreciate you so much! You saved my wife from the horrible registry years ago and we can never thank you enough! Hugs my hero!!
JAB
Hmm, so I’m guessing the logic here is that when women do a crime it isn’t as bad as when men do it.
Wow this is great news Janice. I haven’t been following ASCOL too closely lately, but this seems like a victory for all. Baby steps.
Excellent work Janice! Congratulations on another win!
And they did not need a court case (like the gent in CO is getting) going to the state supreme court to see if the tools used are bad…they were able to do it at a lower level of consideration. Amazing the critical thinking had that did not need to spend all sorts of taxpayer money! Well done Janice and congrats on the results on behalf of the ladies! Now, for the men…
My first post didn’t make it….let’s see if this one does. I am not happy about all women being put in low risk. As a childhood survivor of sexual abuse by women. Nothing happened to them. But my case of csam puts me into high risk. Nice! Congratulations women.
Well I’m glad for female registrants but CDCR treatment of male registrants need to change also. CDCR Parole agents don’t take into consideration the behavior of those while in prison. The Anaheim Parole office flat out said that it did not matter how you behaved on the inside you are lower than life. Then as we all know CDCR and are still starting people over in treatment without giving them written reason.
I am not sure how I feel about this. Maybe it’s a little guilt. After the tiered registry went in, I was able to get off the registry. But I feel/felt that by carving off is least defensible cases/individuals, it was going to be harder for those left to register. The whole thing should be thrown out, no one made to register. This feels like an arbitrary line leaving others behind.
This settlement is life-changing. I was on parole when the Static-99R was used on me even though the SARATSO committee has said for years it’s not validated for women. That inflated score helped lock me into Tier 3/lifetime even though my offense (§ 266i(b)) already carried a heavy registration requirement. Knowing CDCR has now officially admitted there are ‘no validated methods’ for scoring female risk feels like the first real crack in the wall. Thank you, Janice and ACSOL, this gives those of us waiting for our 20-year § 290.5 eligibility date powerful new precedent for 2033 and beyond.