Abstract
In 2011, the California Legislature and the Governor signed AB 109, which required state prisons to transfer certain low-level felons sentenced from state prison to county jails. The intent was to comply with a recent federal court mandate to reduce overcrowding in state prisons. Also, AB 109 aimed to encourage counties to implement cost-effective evidence-based programs, which would teach low-level offenders the skills they needed to reintegrate into society. This thesis seeks to determine whether the State provided counties with sufficient funding to implement evidence-based programs or handle the realigned felons through increased incarceration. There were concerns voiced by scholars and reporters that insufficient funding can potentially push counties to pursue methods such as early release or increase caseloads per officer. My study is a comparison of two demographically similar counties, San Joaquin and Stanislaus, which differed in their chosen policy approaches: San Joaquin County began with already implemented evidence-based programs geared towards rehabilitation, while Stanislaus County had very few programs and initially focused on incarceration. I used information from realignment implementation reports, newspaper articles, probation department brochures, and interviews of three representatives from the two counties to address fiscal advocacy. The results show that State funding was insufficient for both counties in the first two years of realignment, but after the third year funding stabilized. There is still not enough funding to cover all costs entirely. However, my study indicates that in recent years the State has provided adequate funds for counties to try innovative approaches to reducing inmate recidivism. While more research is needed, available evidence suggests that the intentions of AB 109 may be met.