CDCR projects short-term prison increase from Prop 36; LAO says administration likely overstated impact

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation presented fall 2024 population projections to the Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 6 on public safety, including a preliminary adjustment to capture the expected effect of Proposition 36; the Legislative Analyst’s Office told the panel the administration’s estimate is likely too high.

Kathy Jefferson, deputy director of the CDCR Office of Research, told the subcommittee CDCR prepares population projections twice a year to align with the state budget cycle and that the department’s projections have performed well in recent cycles, with a 12‑month error rate of about 1 percent. Jefferson said CDCR’s fall 2024 projection — which includes data and estimated impacts of policy and process changes through June 30, 2024 — initially forecasted a 9 percent, five‑year decrease in the institution population from June 30, 2024, to June 30, 2029. After Proposition 36 passed, CDCR made a “below the line” adjustment to capture a preliminary estimate of the proposition’s population impact.

Jefferson described the assumptions behind CDCR’s Prop 36 estimate: admissions beginning in January 2025, sentencing patterns similar to pre‑Proposition 47 penalties except for enhancements no longer valid under Prop 36, current good conduct credit earning rates, and an assumed average length of stay of about 11 months. She said CDCR’s total incarcerated population as of Feb. 28 was 90,934. With the Prop 36 adjustment, CDCR estimated the institution average daily population at 91,672 for the current year and 93,278 for the budget year; the institution population was projected to decline to 88,787 by fiscal year 2028–29. CDCR reported a total parole population of 34,583 as of Feb. 28 and estimated average daily parole populations of 34,490 (current year) and 34,671 (budget year), with a projected parole population of about 34,241 by FY 2028–29. Jefferson said the estimates will be updated in the May revision as more implementation data become available.

Caitlin O’Neil of the Legislative Analyst’s Office told the committee the administration’s methodology for estimating Prop 36 impacts included assumptions that likely overestimate prison admissions. O’Neil said the administration’s approach effectively assumes Proposition 47’s sentencing reductions were fully reversed by Prop 36, whereas Prop 36 only partially reverses those changes. She pointed out that Prop 36 creates a treatment‑mandated felony pathway for some drug offenses, but individuals generally go to prison only if they decline or fail treatment; that reduces the likelihood of high prison admissions relative to pre‑Prop 47 sentencing.

Based on its review, the LAO said the actual impact could be less than half the magnitude of the administration’s estimate and recommended the administration address those methodological flaws in its May revision. O’Neil also said the LAO expects a relatively small near‑term parole population impact given the offense types affected and typical sentence lengths.

The department and the LAO agreed there is limited implementation data available now; CDCR said it will refine estimates for the May revision and continue to monitor Prop 36 implementation with county partners and the LAO. Subcommittee members pressed both CDCR and LAO for clarity on the assumptions used and requested updates ahead of the May revision.

Why it matters: Small changes in assumptions about sentencing, treatment diversion and length of stay produce large budget differences when multiplied across prison and parole populations. The subcommittee asked the administration and the LAO for clearer, reconciled methods before the May budget update.