Pew Center on the States Recidivism Report

8/7/2019 Pew Center on the States Recidivism Report

1/48PEW CENTER ON THE STATES PubliC SAfETy PERfORmANCE PROjECT

S R c

April 20

The Revolving Doorof Americas Prisons

embargoed until 12:01 a.m. e.t. Wednesday, april 13, 2011


2/48


April 2011

The Pew Center on the States is a division of The Pew Charitable Trusts that identifies andadvances effective solutions to critical issues facing states. Pew is a nonprofit organizationthat applies a rigorous, analytical approach to improve public policy, inform the publicand stimulate civic life.

PEW CENTER ON THE STATESSusan K. Urahn, managing director

Public Safety Performance Project Adam Gelb, director Jennifer Laudano, senior officer Alexis Schuler, senior officerCourtney Dozier, officer

Jake Horowitz, project manager

Richard Jerome, project managerRyan King, project manager

Brian Elderbroom, senior associateSamantha Harvell, senior associate

Jason Newman, senior associateRobin Olsen, senior associateRolanda Rascoe, senior associateCorinne Mills, associate

Mary Tanner Noel, administrative assistantGita Ram, administrative assistant

ACKNOWlEDGmENTS We thank the survey respondents from departments of corrections in all responding states,and our survey and data partners at the Association of State Correctional Administrators:George Camp and Camille Camp, co-executive directors; Patricia Hardyman, seniorassociate, and Fred Levesque, consultant. We also greatly appreciate the contributions of

Jenifer Warren, John Prevost of the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles, James F.

Austin of the JFA Institute, Michael Connelly of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections,Tony Fabelo of the Council of State Governments Justice Center and Howard Snyder of the Bureau of Justice Statistics. We also thank Pew colleagues Nancy Augustine, MichaelCaudell-Feagan, Lynette Clemetson, Kil Huh, Jennifer Peltak, Evan Potler, Joan Riggs, AidanRussell, Carla Uriona, Gaye Williams and Denise Wilson.

Suggested Citation: Pew Center on the States, State of Recidivism: The Revolving Door of Americas Prisons (Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts, April 2011).

For additional information, visit www.pewcenteronthestates.org.

This report is intended for educational and informational purposes. References to specific policy makersor companies have been included solely to advance these purposes and do not constitute an endorsement,sponsorship or recommendation by The Pew Charitable Trusts.

2011 The Pew Charitable Trusts. All Rights Reserved.

901 E Street NW, 10th Floor 2005 Market Street, Suite 1700 Washington, DC 20004 Philadelphia, PA 19103


3/48

State of RecidiviSm: the Revolving dooR of ameRicaS PRiSonS iii

embargoed unti l 12:01 a.m. e.t. Wednesday, april 13, 2011

C sex u Su ry

i r u R s s P r r m sur

o r w S u y

S b r: W is R s R ?

a c s r l k R s R s n w f ur s S w S y n R s R

S R s v ry W y

S b r: c p r S R s: a n c u 12

h w h R s R s c ?

U p k nu b rs

h w d s S P y i p R s R s? 17h w d s c u y c rr s P y i p R s R s? 17

a k R s : ex p s r t r S s 19

i pr Pub S y cu c rr c s s 25R u R s : S r s r Su ss

S b r: R s ur s r d p e R ry Sup r s S r s

a Pr s S r

(continued)


4/48

PeW centeR on the StateSi


ContentS

ex b sS Pr s R s s R s R s

t cy Pr s R s

t S R s

Pr Pub S y cu c s s

S s Pr d f rs R s srsus d r a R s s

h w S s c ss y R s s o rs

W r R ur Pr s

app x: m y d r s B w P w/aSca Sur y

BJS R s r

Jur s n s

e s

l u 2006, Pub S y P r r Pr j s ks ps s s y s u , - r p s pr s s rr s pr pub s y, rs

u b r rr s s s


5/48

State of RecidiviSm: the Revolving dooR of ameRicaS PRiSonS 1


e c S rThe dramatic growth of Americas prisonpopulation during the past three decadesis by now a familiar story. In 2008, thePew Center on the States reported thatincarceration levels had risen to a pointwhere one in 100 American adults wasbehind bars. A second Pew study thefollowing year added another disturbingdimension to the picture, revealing that onein 31 adults in the United States was eitherincarcerated or on probation or parole.

The costs associated with this growth alsohave been well documented. Total statespending on corrections is now about$52 billion, the bulk of which is spenton prisons. State spending on correctionsquadrupled during the past two decades,making it the second fastest growing areaof state budgets, trailing only Medicaid.

While Americas imprisonment boomand its fiscal impacts have been widelydebated, the public safety payoff fromour expenditures on incarceration hasundergone far less scrutiny. Now, however,as the nations slumping economycontinues to force states to do more withless, policy makers are asking tougherquestions about corrections outcomes.

One key element of that analysis ismeasuring recidivism, or the rate atwhich offenders return to prison. Prisons,of course, are not solely responsible forrecidivism results. Parole and probation

agencies, along with social serviceproviders and community organizations,play a critical role.

Although preventing offenders fromcommitting more crimes once released isonly one goal of the overall correctionalsystem, it is a crucial one, both in termsof preventing future victimization and

ensuring that taxpayer dollars are spenteffectively. This report seeks to elevatethe public discussion about recidivism,prompting policy makers and the publicto dig more deeply into the factors thatimpact rates of return to prison, and intoeffective strategies for reducing them.

a fr s l k nu b rsFor years the most widely accepted sourcesof national recidivism statistics havebeen two studies produced by the U.S.Department of Justices Bureau of JusticeStatistics (BJS). The most recent of thosereports, which tracked offenders released


6/48

PeW centeR on the StateS2


exeCutive SummaRy

from state prison in 1994, concluded thata little more than half of released offenders(51.8 percent) were back in prison withinthree years, either for committing anew crime or for violating rules of theirsupervision. Published in 2002, the BJSstudy followed a sample of offenders from15 states, and did not provide any state-level recidivism data.

Recognizing the importance of recidivismto policy makers seeking better resultsfrom their correctional systems, Pew, in

collaboration with the Association of StateCorrectional Administrators (ASCA),undertook a comprehensive survey aimedat producing the first state-by-state lookat recidivism rates. The Pew/ASCA surveyasked states to report three-year return-to-prison rates for all inmates released

from their prison systems in 1999 and2004.This survey differs from the priorBJS study in many important ways,the most significant of which is that it

includes recidivism data from more thantwice as many states.

According to the survey results, 45.4percent of people released from prisonin 1999 and 43.3 percent of those senthome in 2004 were reincarcerated withinthree years, either for committing anew crime or for violating conditions

governing their release. While differencesin survey methods complicate directcomparisons of national recidivism ratesover time, a comparison of the statesincluded in both the Pew/ASCA and BJSstudies reveals that recidivism rates havebeen largely stable. When excludingCalifornia, whose size skews the nationalpicture, recidivism rates between 1994

and 2007 have consistently remainedaround 40 percent.

The new figures suggest that despitethe massive increase in correctionsspending, in many states there has beenlittle improvement in the performanceof corrections systems. If more than fourout of 10 adult American offenders still

return to prison within three years of theirrelease, the system designed to deter themfrom continued criminal behavior clearlyis falling short. That is an unhappy reality,not just for offenders, but for the safety of

American communities.

W thout educat on, job sk s, andothe bas c se v ces, offende s a e

ke y to e eat the same ste s thatb ought them to ja n the f st ace Th s s a ob em that needs to beadd essed head-on. We cannot say we a edo ng eve yth ng we can to kee oucommun t es and ou fam es safe f wea e not add ess ng the h gh ate at wh choffende s a e becom ng e eat c m na s.l u s g B bby J (R)m r 18, 2011


7/48



exeCutive SummaRy

v r S s While Pews new national numbersprovide a useful and representativesnapshot of recidivism, this report

goes further, breaking out the figuresstate by state and showing change inreoffending trends over time. The resultis a patchwork of recidivism rates thatprovokes myriad questions about thedramatic variations seen across thecountry.

For example, why do Wyoming and

Oregon have the lowest overall recidivismrates for offenders released in 2004, andwhy do Minnesota and California havethe highest? Why does North Carolinareturn relatively few ex-offenders to prisonfor technical violations of their parole,but reincarcerate a comparatively largeproportion for new crimes? What drovethe recidivism rate down by 22.1 percent

in Kansas between 1999 and 2004, andwhat drove it up 34.9 percent in SouthDakota during the same time period?

The causes of these variations are notalways what they seem, and we exploresome individual state stories, along with

some of the variables that influencerecidivism patterns. We also examinepolicies and practices with demonstratedsuccess in helping states reduce theirrecidivism rates. These strategies,anchored in research and proven overtime, include the use of sophisticated riskassessments, meticulous reentry planningand post-release supervision carefullytailored to each offenders circumstances.By employing such measures and otherevidence-based interventions, states canimprove the odds that released offenderswill not reappear at the prison gate. Thatoutcome benefits everyone, saving publicfunds and keeping communities safe.

By educ ng the ate of offende swho etu n to son, we kee ou

commun t es safe , ou fam es mo e

ntact, and we e ab e to beg n e nvest ngnca ce at on costs to othe c t ca

se v ces.K u ky g S B s r (d)J u ry 4, 2011


8/48


9/48



Since the early 1970s, prisons have beenthe weapon of choice in Americas fightagainst crime. Between 1973 and 2009,the nations prison population grew by705 percent, resulting in more than onein 100 adults behind bars. 1 This growthcame at substantial cost, with annualstate and federal spending on correctionsexploding by 305 percent during the pasttwo decades, to about $52 billion. 2 Duringthat same period, corrections spendingdoubled as a share of state funding. Itnow accounts for one of every 14 generalfund dollars, 3 and one in every eight state

employees works for a corrections agency.4

This high price would be more thandefensible had it yielded proportionateimprovements in public safety. In fact,the crime rate has been falling since theearly 1990s, and is now at its lowestlevel since 1968. 5 Prison expansioncertainly contributed to this trend. The

most sophisticated research gives prisongrowth credit for one-quarter to one-thirdof the crime drop during the 1990s. 6 Other factors likely included advancesin law enforcement practices, changesin drug markets and an aging Americanpopulation, to name a few.

However, a deeper look at the data revealsa far more complicated picture withsignificant implications for public policy:

n During the past 10 years, all 19states that cut their imprisonment

rates also experienced a decline intheir crime rates. 7

n Florida and New York began thetwenty-first century with nearlythe same size prison population(about 70,000 inmates). Duringthe ensuing decade, Florida added30,000 inmates and now has morethan 100,000 persons behind bars.Meanwhile, New Yorks prisonpopulation fell below 60,000. Yetthe crime rate dropped in both statesby about the same rate. In fact,New Yorks crime drop was slightlylarger (29.2 percent) compared withFloridas (28.2 percent).

n Researchers calculate that we are past

the point of diminishing returns,where each additional prison cellprovides less and less public safetybenefit. For example, in 1980,

Washington State received more than$9 in benefits for every dollar spentlocking up drug offenders; now that

i r c


10/48



intRoduCtion

there are so many people behindbars, the state receives just 37 centsin benefits for each dollar spent. 8

n Finally, if prisons helped cut crime

by at most one-third, then otherfactors and efforts must accountfor the remaining two-thirds of thereduction. And because prisons arethe most expensive option available,there are more cost-effective policiesand programs. For example, it costsan average of $78.95 per day to keepan inmate locked up, more than 20

times the cost of a day on probation.9

Figures like these, along with massive statebudget shortfalls, have helped contribute

to a growing national movement that putsprison spending under greater scrutinythan ever before. For most of the past 40years, the most common question policymakers asked about the budgets of statedepartments of corrections was simplyHow many more prisons do we need?Today state and national leaders fromboth parties are asking a much tougherquestion: How do we get taxpayersa better public safety return on theircorrections dollars?

R s s P r r m surIn their efforts to answer that question,many states are taking a hard look at theirrecidivism rate as a key indicator of thereturn they receive from their correctionalinvestments. Prisons serve multiplepurposes, including exacting retributionfor breaking the law, separating offendersfrom society so they cannot commitmore crimes, deterring the generalpopulation from committing crimes anddiscouraging incarcerated offenders fromcommitting new crimes once they arereleased. The last goalavoiding futurecriminal conduct through deterrenceand rehabilitationis measured bythe recidivism rate and has long beenconsidered the leading statistical indicatorof return on correctional investment.

To be sure, the performance of corrections agencies should be judgedby whether the recidivism rate is

To nc ease ub c safety n th sauste e budget env onment, we

must su o t cost-effect ve effo ts bystates that a e g ounded n the bestact ces and d aw on the atest

nnovat ons f om ub c co ect ons andthe fa th-based commun ty Fo manyyea s, educ ng ec d v sm seemed nea y

m oss b e. Now, many states a e sta t ngto tu n a co ne th ough commonsense

and cost-effect ve efo ms.U S R p fr k W (R-va, r, Sub

c r , Jus , S Ra s, c appr pr s)J u ry 8, 2011


11/48



intRoduCtion

rising or falling over time. All otherthings being equal, a state wherecorrections agencies are strategicallyimproving their release preparationand supervision strategies will see itsrecidivism rate drop.

Policy makers should exercise caution,however, before merely accepting lowor high recidivism numbers as evidenceof successful or failing correctionalprograms. A low recidivism rate does notalways reflect the use of sound releasepreparation and supervision strategies. Bycontrast, they also may be the by-productof a wide range of other factors, suchas policies that send low-risk offendersto prison instead of granting probation,which is likely to result in a low rate of reoffending but at a higher cost. Moreover,beyond the justice system, recidivismrates can be influenced by larger social

and economic forces. Therefore, anyevaluation of recidivism data must includean understanding of this broader contextand the larger policies and practices thatdrive the numbers.

For this reason, states in this report arepresented in alphabetical order, ratherthan ranked by recidivism rate. Readers

are advised to focus on differences withinstates over time, and to probe for reasonswhy one states recidivism rate might behigher than its neighbors rather than tomake judgments about the performanceof its corrections agencies based on thissingle indicator.

o r w S u y At a time when states are mired in fiscalcrises and struggling with painful budgetchoices, policy makers need updated

information about the public safety returnon corrections spending in their states.Specifically, they need knowledge aboutwhat is workingand what is nottoslow down the revolving door of prisons.

To help them along that path, Pewundertook a first-of-its-kind project asurvey of every states department of

What Is theRecIdIvIsm Rate?R s s r

r sp b pu s t pr s

r s r subj sr p r s pr p r p rs s

r s r pr s w rr rr s , r r r ur

us y w sp p r typ y, r s s u s

w r s rs r ry rs w r r s rpr s r p pr bo rs r r ur pr s r

w r s s:

1 f r w r

r su s w r2 f r

sup r s , su s r p r r p r r pr b

r r ru s


12/48


13/48



a Cl s r L R c s R sn w f ur s S w S yn R s RThe Pew/ASCA survey found the three-year return-to-prison rate for inmatesreleased in 1999 to be 45.4 percent, and43.3 percent for those released in 2004.Recidivism rates changed little betweenthe 1999 and 2004 release cohorts,despite more than 63,000 more peoplebeing discharged from prison in 2004.The total number of releases from prisonincreased by 13.5 percent in the 33 statesthat reported data for both 1999 and 2004

(see Exhibit 1 for state-by-state data). Thenumber of prisoners released increased in29 states but decreased in four. Across the33 states that reported for both periods,the recidivism rate declined slightly,dropping 4.8 percent between the cohorts.

Despite a nearly two-decade declinein national crime rates, the rate of reincarceration for a new crime amongthose persons released from prisonincreased by 11.9 percent between thetwo cohorts in this study. However, thisincrease was offset by a 17.7 percent

drop in the rate of offenders returnedfor a technical violation. These numberssuggest that states are improving theirresponses to community supervisionviolations, thereby reserving prison spacefor ex-offenders who have committednew crimes. Nevertheless, the increasein the rate of returns for new crimesunderscores the need for states to identify

and implement evidence-based strategiesthat protect public safety and holdoffenders accountable.

Prior to this research, the most recentstudies of national recidivism ratesby BJS found that the rate of released

i be eve n, and we have, toughstatutes and sentences fo those

who b eak ou aws and endange ouc t zens and commun t es. As a esu t,ou c me ates a e down. Howeve , ou

ec d v sm ate s st too h gh.reduct on n ec d v sm means fewev ct ms, and ess son costs.

v r g B b m d (R)J u ry 12, 2011


14/48



a CLoSeR Look at ReCidiviSm RateS

re eases rec d v sm re eases rec d v sm

A a a a 8,771 36.0% 10,880 35.1%A aska N/A N/A 11,619 50.4%

Ar zona 13,091 39.6% 15,795 39.1%

Arkansas 5,663 49.0% 6,244 44.4%

Ca orn a 126,456 61.1% 118,189 57.8%

Co orado N/A N/A N/A N/A

Connect c t 13,950 45.8% 16,100 43.7%

De aware N/A N/A N/A N/A

f or da N/A N/A N/A N/A

Georg a 16,951 38.0% 18,972 34.8%

Hawa N/A N/A N/A N/A

idaho 1,071 33.0% 1,574 33.6%

i no s 25,025 51.8% 35,606 51.7%

ind ana N/A N/A 13,651 37.8%

iowa 2,953 32.4% 3,533 33.9%

Kansas 5,088 55.1% 5,178 42.9%

Kent ck 7,622 38.8% 10,743 41.0%lo s ana 12,787 43.9% 13,391 39.3%

ma ne N/A N/A N/A N/A

mar and N/A N/A N/A N/A

massach setts 2,860 38.1% 2,299 42.2%

m ch gan 10,985 38.0% 14,217 31.0%

m nnesota 3,940 55.1% 5,189 61.2%

m ss ss pp 5,742 26.6% 8,428 33.3%

m sso r 12,974 48.7% 18,637 54.4%

montana 906 41.8% 1,253 42.1%

Ne raska 1,612 28.8% 1,846 32.3%

Nevada N/A N/A N/A N/A

e 1

S Pr s R l s s R c s R s19992002 20042007

(continued)


15/48




noteS: t r 19992002 s r y p r b r 20042007 b us r p r r 19992002 r t 20042007 r s r r 33 s s r p r b

y rs s 43 3 p r , bu r s s r 534,270 d r ss r s s (c r , d w r , f rm ry , m , n , t ss v r ) e s s pr r 20042007 y (a sk ,i , n r d k , n w h ps r , n w m x , R is , W s v r Wy )

SoURce: P w/aSca R s Sur y

re eases rec d v sm re eases rec d v sm

New Ha psh re N/A N/A 1,082 44.2%

New jerse 14,034 48.2% 14,039 42.7%

New mex co N/A N/A 3,615 43.8%

New york 25,592 39.9% 24,921 39.9%

North Caro na 23,445 43.8% 22,406 41.1%

North Dakota N/A N/A 845 39.6%

Oh o 22,128 39.0% 26,695 39.6%

Ok aho a 7,802 24.1% 8,159 26.4%

Oregon 2,769 33.4% 4,202 22.8%Penns van a 6,844 36.6% 8,750 39.6%

Rhode is and N/A N/A 770 30.8%

So th Caro na 9,299 26.8% 11,211 31.8%

So th Dakota 1,231 33.7% 2,034 45.5%

Tennessee N/A N/A N/A N/A

Texas 56,571 32.1% 72,130 31.9%

utah 2,563 65.8% 3,056 53.7%

Ver ont N/A N/A N/A N/A V rg n a 8,997 29.0% 11,999 28.3%

Wash ngton 5,738 32.8% 8,093 42.9%

West V rg n a N/A N/A 1,346 26.8%

W scons n 5,206 46.1% 8,501 46.0%

W o ng N/A N/A 705 24.8%

t l 470,666 45.4% 567,903 43.3%

e 1

S Pr s R l s s R c s R s(continued) 19992002 20042007


16/48




prisoners who were reincarcerated withinthree years of release had increasedsharply. 13 For inmates released in 1983,the estimated national recidivism rate was41.4 percent; for prisoners released in1994, it had jumped to 51.8 percent. ThePew/ASCA survey differs from the priorBJS studies in many important ways.See the Appendix for a discussion of thedifferences between the studies.

While differences in survey methodscomplicated direct comparisons of national recidivism rates over time, acomparison of the states included in boththe Pew/ASCA and BJS studies revealsthat recidivism rates have been largelystable since the mid-1990s. The highnumber of releases and rate of return foroffenders from California has a significantimpact on the national recidivism rates.

When California is excluded from the

national figures, the recidivism rate for theremaining states declines to 39.7 percentand 38.5 percent for the 1999 and 2004release cohorts, respectively. These ratesare similar to the 40.1 percent rate thatBJS produced for its 1994 release cohortwhen excluding California. This suggeststhat the overall national recidivism ratehas been largely stable, with roughly four

in 10 prisoners returning to prison withinthree years of release.

S R s v ry W yThe national recidivism rates providean important barometer of return on

correctional investment, but they obscurekey differences among the states. Thecorrectional landscape varies dramaticallyin scale, policy and practice from stateto state, rendering national estimateshelpful for understanding broad trendsand developments, but ill suited foridentifying state progress and promisingareas for improvement. State-level analysesuncovered interesting findings related toprisoner releases and rates of recidivism inthe past decade.

R i i i 1999 R lIn the 33 states that reported data forthe 1999 release cohort, 45.4 percentof inmates released from prison werereincarcerated within three years. Utah

compaRIng state Rates:a note of cautIon

R rs r s us uw p r r s r s

r ss s s a s s r s rs pr u u r us r b s,

rs ss ss s rp ss b y w r u s u y

ys s w r u qus rr s

s s

S app x r s uss rs r s

sur r p r r s r s


17/48




had the highest rate of recidivism, with65.8 percent of those released fromprison sent back within three years. Infive states, more than half of releasedprisoners were returned to prison duringthe follow-up period.

Oklahoma had the lowest rate of recidivism, with 24.1 percent of releasedprisoners returned to custody. Four otherstates (Mississippi, Nebraska, SouthCarolina and Virginia) reported three-yearrecidivism rates of less than 30 percent.

Breaking the numbers down further, 19.9percent of all released offenders werereincarcerated for a new crime and 25.5percent were returned for a technicalviolation of supervision (Exhibit 2). Statesrates of recidivism for a new crime rangedfrom a high of 41.9 percent in NorthCarolina to a low of 8 percent in Georgia.

Recidivism for technical violations wasequally varied, topping out at 51.2 percentin Utah and dipping as low as 1.9 percentin North Carolina.

R i i i 2004 R l

Findings for the 2004 release cohortlargely mirrored those for the 1999 group,with some interesting state variations.

Figures from the 41 participating statesshowed that 43.3 percent of peoplereleased from prison in 2004 werereturned within three years. Minnesotareported the highest recidivism rate,with 61.2 percent of released prisoners

returning to custody within three years.Six states had recidivism rates that wereabove 50 percent.

Oregon had the lowest rate of recidivismin the country for prisoners released in200422.8 percent. Nationally five statesreported recidivism rates under 30 percentfor their 2004 releases.

Among this group of released offenders,22.3 percent were returned to prisonfor a new crime and 21 percent werereturned for a technical violationof supervision. Alaska reported thehighest rate of recidivism for a newcrime (44.7 percent), while Montanareported the lowest rate (4.7 percent).

A look at technical violations leadingto reincarceration showed rates ashigh as 40.3 percent in Missouri andas low as zero in Arkansas. The reasonfor Arkansass results: the Departmentof Community Corrections operatestwo distinct programs as an alternativeto traditional incarceration for adultoffenders who fail to comply with theterms of parole supervision.

h w h R sR s c ?The Pew/ASCA study shows a nearly evensplit between states that had increasingand decreasing rates of recidivism betweenthe 1999 and 2004 releases (Exhibit 3).Oregon, Kansas and Utah led the countryin declining returns to prison during the


18/48


NEW CRIME TECHNICAL VIOLATION NO RETURN

ALABAMA

ARIZONA

ARKANSAS

CALIFORNIA

CONNECTICUT

GEORGIA

IDAHO

ILLINOIS

IOWA

KANSAS

KENTUCKY

LOUISIANA

MASSACHUSETTS

MICHIGAN

MINNESOTA

MISSISSIPPI

MISSOURI

MONTANA

NEBRASKA

NEW JERSEY

NEW YORK

NORTH CAROLINA

OHIO

OKLAHOMA

OREGON

PENNSYLVANIA

SOUTH CAROLINA

SOUTH DAKOTA

TEXAS

UTAH

VIRGINIA

WASHINGTON

WISCONSIN

17%

28%

44%

18%

39%

7%

12%

27%

23%

12%

11%

19%

33%

15%

36%

12%

14%

5%

18%

12%

0%

40%

4%

28%

22%

25%

11%

31%

30%

20%

9%

16%

26%

22%

40%

37%

12%

27%

29%

1%

7%

11%

3%

24%

9%

34%

5%

32%

5%

19%

25%

65%

61%

56%

42%

56%

65%

66%

48%

66%

57%

59%

61%

58%

69%

39%

67%

46%

58%

68%

57%

60%

59%

60%

74%

77%

60%

68%

55%

68%

46%

72%

57%

54%

17%

22%

16%

14%

40%

8%

11%

30%

24%

10%

9%

19%

31%

13%

33%

13%

15%

9%

18%

18%

33%

47%

5%

30%

22%

22%

9%

45%

30%

25%

7%

25%

22%

14%

34%

33%

9%

32%

28%

2%

12%

3%

6%

23%

8%

23%

8%

51%

8%

6%

20%

64%

60%

51%

39%

54%

62%

67%

48%

68%

45%

61%

56%

62%

62%

45%

73%

51%

58%

71%

52%

60%

56%

61%

76%

67%

63%

73%

66%

68%

34%

71%

67%

54%

Exhibit 2

This graph shows the proportion of released offenders who returned to prison for either committinga new crime or a technical violation as well as those who did not return within three years.

The Cycle of Prison Release

States providing data only for 20042007:Alaska (NC=45%; TV=6%; NR=50%)Indiana (NC=21%; TV=17%; NR=62%)New Hampshire (NC=7%; TV=37%; NR=56%)New Mexico (NC=21%; TV=23%; NR=56%)North Dakota (NC=16%; TV=23%; NR=60%)Rhode Island (NC=21%; TV=10%; NR=69%)West Virginia (NC=10%; TV=16%; NR=73%)Wyoming (NC=11%; TV=14%; NR=75%)

SOURCE: Pew/ASCA Recidivism Survey.

1999

2004

1999

2004

1999

2004

1999

2004

1999

2004

1999

2004

1999

2004

1999

2004

1999

2004

1999

2004

1999

2004

1999

2004

1999

2004

1999

2004

1999

2004

1999

2004

1999

2004

1999

2004

1999

2004

1999

2004

1999

2004

1999

2004

1999

2004

1999

2004

1999

2004

1999

2004

1999

2004

19992004

1999

2004

1999

2004

1999

2004

1999

2004

21%

15%

11%

40%

33%

15%

19%

16%

23%

12%

27%

21%

23%

23%

21%

20%

16%

12%

42%

27%

21%

28%

14%

19%

11%

24%

15%

21%

27%

26%1999

2004


19/48




study period, with Oregon reporting thesteepest drop of 31.9 percent. Louisiana,Michigan and New Jersey also reporteddecreases of at least 10 percent.

Meanwhile, South Dakota and WashingtonState reported increases of greater than 30percent. Six other states (Massachusetts,Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,Nebraska and South Carolina) reported

increases of greater than 10 percent intheir recidivism rates between the 1999and 2004 cohorts.

Focusing the lens more tightly, Montanaand Oregon documented the largestdeclines in new crime returns while NorthCarolina, Ohio and Oregon reported thelargest decreases in returns for technicalviolations of supervision.

Exhibit 3

RI

NJ

MA

NH

VT

CT

DE

MD

DC

IL

VA

WA

OR

CA

NV

ID

MT

WY

UT

CO

NE

SD

NDMN

IA

WI

OH

MI

NY

NM

TX

KS MO

AL

SC

FL

KY

NC

ME

IN

LA

MS

TN

GA

AZ

PA

OK AR

AK

HI

WV

Changes in Recidivism Rates Between 19992002 and 20042007


The State of RecidivismLarger (>10% )Smaller (0 10%)

Smaller (0 10%)Larger (>10%)

N/A

-2.4%

-1.2% -9.3%

-5.5%

-8.3%

2.0%

-0.1%

4.7%

-22.1% 5.6%

-10.7%

-18.2%

11.1%

10.7%

-4.4%

25.1%

11.7%

0.7%

12.1%

-11.4%

0.1%

-6.1%

1.6%

9.4%

8.4%

19.0%

-0.8%

-2.6%

-0.2%34.9%

-31.9%

-18.4%

30.8%

Increases

Decreases


20/48


21/48



Recidivism rates vary widely among thestates, and there are a number of potentialexplanations for the differences. Manydeliberate policy decisions, such as thetypes of offenders sentenced to prison, howinmates are selected for release, the lengthof stay under supervision, and decisionsabout how to respond to violations of supervision, can have a large impact onrecidivism rates. States differ markedly withregard to these practices, which influencerecidivism rates to a strikingly high degree.In other words, the numbers are only onepiece of the puzzle. In order to understand

the significance of a states recidivism rate,one must examine the underlying policiesand practices that impact the number.

h w d s S P yi p R s R s?States that send comparatively low-riskoffenders to prison are likely to see lowerrearrest and violation rates compared withstates that concentrate prison space onmore dangerous offenders. If, for example,a state incarcerates a large proportion of lower-risk offenders, then its recidivism ratemight be comparatively low, because suchoffenders would be, by definition, less of a

risk to return to prison. A state with a largerpercentage of serious offenders behindbars, on the other hand, might experiencehigher rates of reincarceration when thoseoffenders return to the community.

Oklahoma exemplifies the former example:A lot of people who might be put onprobation or diverted into an alternativeprogram in another state wind up goingto prison in Oklahoma, notes MichaelConnelly, administrator of evaluation andanalysis in the Oklahoma Department of Corrections. These lower level folks arentas likely to recidivate, so it benefits ouroverall numbers and makes us look likewere doing an even better job than weredoing. Oklahomas overall recidivism ratefor offenders released in 2004 was 26.4percent, the third lowest in the country, thePew/ASCA survey found.

h w d s c u y

c rr s P y i pR s R s?Few practices can influence a statesrecidivism rate more dramatically thanits handling of technical violations of conditions of supervision. As a result,

u p c n rs


22/48



unPaCking the numbeRS

taking a close look at a states managementof such violations is key to understandingwhat its recidivism rate really means.

First, states that have shorter periods of post-prison supervision may have lowerrates of revocation to prison, because theiroffenders must comply with supervisionrules for shorter periods. North Carolinais a good example of this policy. Parolesupervision in North Carolina lastsbetween six and nine months, an unusuallyshort period. Not surprisingly, the state hadthe second lowest rate of technical violatorsreturned to prison among offendersreleased in 2004less than 1 percent. If you are not on parole, you are not going tobe reincarcerated on a technical violation.By contrast, North Carolina has a relativelyhigh rate of return for new crimes40.4percent for offenders released in 2004placing it in the top third among states bythat measure.

Second, the ability of supervision agenciesto detect violations and how they respond

to such violations have a substantialimpact on recidivism rates. Detection candepend on caseload sizes; the numberand complexity of the rules and programswith which offenders must comply; theavailability of drug testing and GPS andother monitoring systems; and the strengthof the relationships that officers havewith offenders families and communities.Responses to violations are guided bysupervision philosophy, and the lawsand policies that specify what officers aresupposed to do when various violations

are discovered.14 The examples below

illustrate a few ways in which managementof technical violations can influence therecidivism rate.

In some states, released offenders whobreak the rules of their supervision areroutinely punished with a short prisonstay. California, for example, has foryears taken this route, an approach thathas helped to keep its prison populationthe highest in the nation. In other states,such as Oregon, the practice is to useprison only as a last resort, and technicalviolations are instead met with a range of sanctions in the community, sometimesincluding time in jail. The state that usesprison as a response would have a higherrecidivism rate, because a violators returnto prison is counted in the calculation.But that higher rate would not necessarilymean that state is doing a worse jobpreparing offenders to succeed in thecommunity. Rather, it is merely a reflectionof how transgressions are handled.

it s easy to see that we a e at ac t ca tu n ng o nt n c m na

just ce o c esone that w ho efu yesu t n sma t and tough o c es to

otect the ub c.t x s S R p J rry m (R)m y 11, 2010


23/48


24/48


25/48




At the start of the millennium, Michigan

did not look like a state on the cusp of inspiring correctional reform. Its myriadproblems included high crime rates,a sharply rising inmate population,disappointing recidivism numbers and aneconomy deeply wounded by the ailingauto industry. By 2002, the state wassinking $1.6 billion a year into corrections,almost one-fifth of its general fund.

Less than a decade later, Michigan is ridinga wave of policy changes that have allowedit to shrink its inmate population by 12percent, close more than 20 correctionalfacilities and keep a growing number of parolees from returning to custody.

The cornerstone of the effort is the

Michigan Prisoner Reentry Initiative(MPRI). Launched in 2003 and expandedstatewide in 2008, the initiatives missionis to equip every released offender withtools to succeed in the community. MPRIbegins at intake, when a prisoners risk,needs and strengths are measured todevelop individualized programming.Prior to parole, offenders are transferred

to a reentry facility, and a transition plan,which addresses employment, housing,transportation, mentoring, counselingand any necessary treatment for mentalillness or addictions, is finalized in closecollaboration with community service

providers. After release, officers usefirm but flexible graduated sanctions including short stays in a reentry centerif neededto manage rule breakingbefore it escalates to more serioustransgressions.

The Pew/ASCA recidivism survey founda mixed picture in Michigan. Recidivismdeclined by 18 percent between 1999and 2004 because of a dramatic drop inthe reincarceration of technical violators,but returns to prison for new crimes

jumped by almost 21 percent during theperiod. Those numbers, however, do notcapture progress that has occurred underMPRI since Pews observation periodended in 2007.

Overall, post-2007 preliminary figuresfrom the Michigan Department of Corrections show that parolees released

through the MPRI are returning to prison33 percent less frequently than similaroffenders who do not participate in theprogram. A closer look at all offendersreleased from Michigan prisons revealsthat parole revocations for both newcrimes and technical violations are at theirlowest level since record keeping began23 years ago. In 2009, there were 195

revocations for every 1,000 parolees101were for technical violations and 94 werefor new crimes. A decade earlier, thatfigure was 344 revocations per 1,000parolees246 for technical violations and98 for new criminal convictions.

tuRnIng the tIdeIn mIchIgan


26/48



The trend is particularly significant becauseMichigans parole population has growndramatically in recent years. As MPRI hasproduced positive results, members of the states Parole & Commutation Boardhave become increasingly confident aboutparolee success, leading to higher paroleapproval rates. As a result, the state paroledroughly 3,000 more prisoners in 2009than it did in 2006.

Although the roots of MPRI were clearlyin a budget crisis, it was never only aboutsaving moneyit was a belief that doingcorrections right would result in a smallerprison system and large savings, recalledformer Michigan Director of CorrectionsPatricia L. Caruso. We had to change ourentire culture to focus on success. It waschallenging, but fortunately, it worked.

In early 2002, Missouri faced a dilemmafamiliar to many states: A jump in theprison population had stretched capacityto the limit, yet budget woes and otherfunding priorities meant there were nodollars to increase prison capacity. Themessage from the governors office andGeneral Assembly was clearno more

prisons. Find another way to cope.

In response, Missouri policy makerstook a hard look at what wasdriving their inmate populationupward. Longer terms brought onby mandatory minimum sentencingwere partly responsible. But theprimary contributor was a steep rise

in the number of parole and probationviolators behind bars. The Pew/ASCAdata confirm the diagnosis. In 2004,the state recorded an overall recidivismrate of 54.4 percentthe third highestamong the states. Missouri also ranked


i want to be abso ute y c ea . i amnot advocat ng that we educe

son o u at ons just to save money.Nonv o ent offende s a e st awb eake s, and they w b eak aws untthey ea n the esson. What i am say ng sthat we need to do a bette job teach ngnonv o ent offende s the ght essons.

That takes mo e than son; t takes mo ethan s a -on-the-w st- obat on. D ugand a coho add ct on must be b oken;d sc ne and job sk s must be ea ned.When that can be done bette , outs de ofex ens ve son wa s, that s what weshou d do. resu ts matte , ub c safetymatte s, tax aye do a s matte , sav ng

ves and esto ng fam es matte .c Jus W R y Pr Jr ,Supr c ur m ss urf bru ry 9, 2011

tackLIng technIcaL vIoLatIons In mIssouRI


27/48




highest in the proportion of releasedoffenders imprisoned for a technicalviolation (40.3 percent). That factorcontributed to an overall increase inrecidivism in Missouri of 12 percentbetween 1999 and 2004.

Over the next four years, Missouri mappedout a meticulous plan for managing allbut the most serious violators in thecommunity. It began with a work groupthat analyzed revocations, evolved intoan inter-agency team that drafted a visionand set goals, continued through a pilotproject and ultimately took flight throughnew policies and procedures, coupledwith extensive parole and probation staff training, in 2006.

Today released offenders in Missouri aresubject to e-driven supervision (the eis for evidence), which uses a new riskassessment tool to categorize paroleesand help set supervision levels. Whenviolations occur, officers have a range

of sanctions they may impose, from averbal reprimand or modification of conditions, to electronic monitoring,residential drug treatment or shocktime in jail.

Every possible avenue is tried for thatindividual before we resort to sendinghim back to prison, Missouri Directorof Corrections George Lombardi said.That approach is just part of ourculture now.

The payoff has been dramatic: 46 percentof offenders released in fiscal year 2004,for example, were returned to prisonwithin two years, either for a new crimeor technical violation. Since then, that ratehas dropped steadily, and reached a low of 36.4 percent for offenders released in fiscalyear 2009.

Missouris prison population, meanwhile,has held steady at about 30,500 inmatessince 2005.


28/48


29/48



With state revenues down and lawmakersforced to make cuts to vital publicprograms, corrections spending is underscrutiny like never before. Leadersfrom across the political spectrum aredemanding a more effective correctionalsystem that reduces recidivism anddelivers taxpayers a higher public safetyreturn on their investment.

States have been seeking better results infour main areas:

Staff and program cuts: The vast majorityof states recently made or plan to make

cuts to personnel and programs to savemoney. A recent survey of state correctionsdepartments by the Vera Institute of

Justice showed that least 32 states haveimplemented staff reductions or hiringfreezes, and 22 states have eliminatedprograms or instituted cut-backs. 16

Operating efficiencies: To save additional

dollars, a number of states are findingways to operate more efficiently byreducing the number of prison beds andclosing facilities, reining in food servicecosts, investing in technology to streamlineand improve institutional surveillance,

cutting back on inmate transportationcosts and improving energy efficiency infacilities.17

Sentencing and release policies: Severalstates are reexamining their statutes

that help determine who goes to prisonand how long they stay. Many states areupdating the dollar thresholds for variousproperty crimes, realizing they have notbeen adjusted since the 1960s, whileothers are modifying penalties for drugcrimes, including making more offenderseligible for prison alternatives. 18 Otherstates are instituting or changing earned-

time credit incentives for inmates.

Recidivism reduction strategies: Finally,almost all states have under way a variety of efforts to break the cycle of recidivism. Inaddition to improving correctional policyand practice, many of these initiativesinvolve coordination of offender serviceswith other government agencies, such as

health and housing, and community- andfaith-based organizations. 19

Policies targeted at reducing recidivismoffer perhaps the ripest opportunitiesfor achieving the twin goals of less

i pr P l c S C C rr c l C s s


30/48



imPRoving PubLiC Safety and Cutting CoRReCtionaL CoStS

crime and lower costs. Researchindicates that strong implementationof evidence-based practices (EBP)and programs can reduce recidivism

rates by 50 percent.20

Such powerfulresults were seen recently in Arizona,where a combination of new legislationand persistent efforts by the courtsand probation officials to adopt EBPresulted in a 31 percent drop in newfelony convictions of probationersduring the past two years. 21

That kind of change is unlikelynationwide over a short period, butPew calculates that if the 41 states thatresponded to our survey with 2004 datacould reduce their recidivism rates by

just 10 percent, they could save morethan $635 million in averted prisoncosts in one year alone (see Exhibit4 for an analysis of 10 states). Moreimportantly, the drop in recidivismwould mean fewer victims of crime.

R u R s :S r s r Su ssMany states already are employinga mix of strategies proven to breakthe cycle of recidivism. Researchshows that the largest reductions inrecidivism are realized when evidence-based programs and practices areimplemented in prisons and governthe supervision of probationersand parolees in the communitypost-release. While outlining acomprehensive reentry strategyis beyond the scope of this study,leaders in the field have publishedhelpful resources that are availabletopolicy makers and practitioners (seesidebar). For purposes of this report,we highlight a condensed array of approaches that states have used toreduce recidivism, hold offendersaccountable and control correctionscosts.

Exhibit 4

If just the 10 states with the greatest potential cost savings reduced their recidivism rates by 10percent, they could save more than $470 million in a single year.

NOTE: Potential cost savings were calculated by multiplying each states annual operating cost per inmate in 2005 byone-tenth of the number of offenders who returned to prison in 2004 2007. Annual operating costs per inmate in 2005 arefrom Pew Center on the States, Public Safety, Public Spending: Forecasting Americas Prison Population 20072011 (Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts, June 2007). To achieve the full estimated savings, states would have to closecorrectional facilities.


Protecting Public Safety and Cutting Costs

CA NY IL TX AK OH NC CT NJ MO$233.1 $42.0 $39.8 $33.6 $24.6 $24.3 $23.0 $20.8 $14.4 $16.8

(Potential Annual Cost Savings in Millions)

$472.5 million


31/48




1. d i s R i i iR i m r R w rpr r

Although Americas first prisons wereaimed at rehabilitation, in the twentiethcentury the mission became commandand control. Keep the inmates inside thewalls, prevent riots, meet constitutionallyminimal standards of confinement andmake sure staff is safe. Those were, andtoday remain, the chief marching ordersfor most wardens. Setting up inmates forsuccess when they leave has not been partof the job description.

Successful efforts to improve public safetyand control corrections costs shouldstart with defining, measuring, trackingand rewarding correctional agenciesperformance in terms of recidivismreduction. It is worrisome that not all50 states were able or willing to providedata on key public safety outcomes suchas the rate of reincarceration of releasedoffenders. States cannot determinewhether their correctional interventionsare effective if they lack the basic datanecessary to evaluate outcomes. Focusingon desired results such as decreasing

ResouRces foR deveLopIng effectIve ReentRy and supeRvIsIon stRategIes

dur p s , u b r r jus r z s,s k rs u y rs p pr s r ry sup r s s r s t r r u b r r s ur s pp y k rs pr rs p , -b s rrp s pr r s, u :

n c u S g r s R ry P y c u : Report of the Re-Entry Policy Council: Charting the Safe and Successful Return of Prisoners to theCommunity 22

n Urb i s u :Putting Public Safety First: 13 Parole Supervision Strategies toEnhance Reentry Outcomes 23

n n g r rs ass c r r B s Pr s:Improving Prisoner Reentry through Strategic Policy Innovations 24

n U S d p r Jus n i s u c rr s cr& Jus i s u :Implementing Evidence-Based Policy and Practice inCommunity Corrections 25

n P w c r S s, Pub S y P r r Pr j :Policy Framework to Strengthen Community Corrections 26


32/48




recidivism, reducing substance abuse,increasing employment and payingvictim restitution encourages correctionalagencies to set goals for these importantoutcomes, to track their performance andto use that information to manage andimprove practice. Further, by offeringincentives to agencies that reach definedtargets, states can promote changes inpracticesand agency culturethat leadto positive results for ex-offenders andimprove public safety.

A number of states have adopted reformsto directly reduce recidivism, measureprogress and reward success. In Kansas,for example, the legislature created theKansas Sentencing Commission withthe explicit responsibility of measuringand monitoring the states progress in

reducing recidivism. 27 More recently,the Kansas legislature implementedincentive funding for diverting technicalviolators away from the expensive optionof reincarceration. Legislation passedin 2007 provided $4 million annuallyin state grants to county communitycorrections programs that submit plansto reduce revocations to prison by 20percent. 28 Similarly, in the past three years,

Arizona, California, Illinois and SouthCarolina each have passed legislation thatsets up performance incentive fundingprograms for probation departments toreduce recidivism and technical violationrates.29 The Arizona program providesrefunds equal to up to 40 percent of theresultant cost savingsto counties that cutrevocations to prison. 30

The federal government, which provideshundreds of millions in aid annually to

state and local justice systems, could helpaccelerate the trend toward results-basedcorrections. Similar to efforts that rewardsuccess in education and other fields,appropriate justice awards could be linkedto progress on reducing recidivism andother key objectives.

2. B i pr r i r R l

ti pri a i iPrior to the past decade, little was doneto smooth an offenders transition fromprison back to the community. In moststates, offenders typically were set free witha few dollars and the phone number of thelocal parole office. While the impulse to

As a fo me osecuto , i be evest ong y n secu ng tough and

a o ate son sentences fo eo ewho b eak ou aws. But t s a so

m o tant that we do eve yth ng we canto ensu e that when these eo e get outof son, they ente ou commun t es as

oduct ve membe s of soc ety, so we cansta t to eve se the dange ous cyc es of

ec d v sm and v o ence.U S S P r k l y(d-vt, r, Ju ry c )Ju y 21, 2010


33/48




do the bare minimum may have reflectedpublic sentiment, it did little to enhancepublic safety.

Over time, research has revealed a seriesof critical steps that can put offenders on apath to success. A large and growing bodyof evidence shows that the first such step iscareful planning for release. Beginning at thetime of prison admission, such pre-releasepreparation can yield positive results in thecrucial first months after an offender returnsto the community when he or she is atgreatest risk of returning to prison. 31

The process should begin with a thoroughscreening and assessment at intake toidentify potentially urgent needs, suchas substance abuse treatment and mentalhealth services. The assessment shouldguide a case management plan duringincarceration that uses evidence-based

programming tailored to each offenderscriminal risk factors. While in prison,offenders should develop relationshipswith parole officers and others who willbe integral to their lives after release.Ensuring that conditions of supervisionat home are clearly communicated andtailored to each individuals risk factors forreoffending is equally critical, and should

be conveyed prior to an offenders release.In Oregon and Michigan, for example, fieldstaff connect with inmates to help explorehousing options, identify the need formental health or other community services,and clearly communicate expectations andthe rules of supervision. 32

3. o i iz u s r i iR r

Decades of research have produced ampleevidence and professional consensusabout which case management strategiesmost effectively reduce recidivismand improve public safety. Effectivecommunity supervision begins with

validated risk and needs assessments,the accurate categorization of offendersby their risk of reoffending and thedevelopment and implementation of caseplans based on an individuals needs andrisk of reoffending.

The identification of risk and needs isa critical step, because supervision and

programs are most effective at reducingfuture crime when they are specificto an offenders individual profile. 33 Failing to match treatment with anoffenders risk level can, in fact, haveserious consequences. Research shows,for example, that putting lower-risk

its t me to end bus ness as usuan ou son system and fo

eg s ato s to th nk and act w th cou ageand c eat v ty. We can make sens b e and

oven efo ms to ou c m na just cesystem that w cut son costs wh ekee ng the ub c safe.f r r h us Sp k r n w g r (R)J u ry 8, 2011


34/48




offenders in intensive programmingactually increases their recidivism rates. 34 Evidence-based interventions targetingoffenders with a moderate to high risk of

committing new crimes produce betteroutcomes for both the offenders and thecommunity. 35

Programming also is key, as researchdemonstrates that a combination of surveillance and treatment is moreeffective at reducing recidivism thanreliance on monitoring and control

alone.36 Supervision can improve publicsafety and individual outcomes whilemaximizing the use of scarce correctionaldollars by focusing on high-risk offendersand incorporating critical community-based mental health and substance abuseservices, education and employmentassistance.

Some states have codified the use of riskand needs assessments and individualizedtreatment plans and directed resourcestoward higher risk offenders. For example,in 2010 New Hampshire passed a billmandating the administration of risk and

needs assessments to all offenders onprobation and parole to inform decisionsabout the length of active supervisionterms. 37 Illinois passed a similar law in2009, creating a task force to deploy atool to evaluate offenders risks, needs andresources necessary to improve outcomes.The state mandated use of this tool withat least 75 percent of the incarcerated andparole populations within five years. 38

Washingtons Offender Accountability Act, passed in 1999, required that felonyoffenders be classified according to theirrisk of reoffending, and that those at higherrisk receive proportionally more staff attention and rehabilitation resources. 39

4. I swi c r i s i

Some technical violators shouldundoubtedly be returned to prison,particularly those who violate conditionssuch as stay away orders that have a

direct link to victim safety. But progressivesanctions that hold the offenderaccountable and keep him or her in thecommunityand therefore connected tofamily and employmentcan be just aseffective, if not more effective, than a costlyrevocation. 40

When using alternative sanctions,

agencies should ensure their officersrespond to violations swiftly withconsequences that are proportional tothe seriousness of the wrongdoing. Onemodel of this approach is deliveringremarkable results in Honolulu, Hawaii,

if you just th ow eve yone n ja ,ts te b y ex ens ve and they get

out and they a e n the same boat.K u ky S S t J s (R)m r 5, 2011


35/48


36/48



approach to curbing corrections costs andprotecting public safety.

At least 95 percent of inmates in Americaultimately will be released and returnedto the community. 45 Keeping them crime-and drug-free is no easy assignment.Many offenders lacked education,work experience, family support and astable living situation before they wereincarcerated, and many suffer from mentalillness or a history of addiction. Oncereleased, ex-offenders have the addedstigma of a prison record, a considerable

barrier to employment. Moreover, theparole and probation agencies charged withsupervising them often are burdened withhigh caseloads and outdated technologies.

Despite the obstacles, states such asOregon, Michigan and Missouri aredemonstrating success in reducingvictimization and closing the revolvingdoor that for so long has funneled a streamof repeat offenders back into prison. Theirwork and promising initiatives under wayin many other states deserve attention nowmore than ever.


37/48


38/48



aPPendix: methodoLogy

returned to prison within three years of release for technical violations and then,while incarcerated, were later convictedof a new crime that occurred prior to thereturn to prison.

d r s B w P w/aSca Sur y BJSR s rThe Pew/ASCA survey and the earlierBJS research differ in important ways.First, the studies used distinct methods of

collecting recidivism data. The Pew/ASCAsurvey asked all states to self-report dataon releases from and returns to prison.For its research, BJS collected data for allprison releases from 11 states in 1983and 15 states in 1994 and drew a samplefrom each of those states based on offensecategory. Researchers then constructedsamples to match with offender rap

sheet data to create rates of rearrest,reconviction and return to prison. BJSanalyzed these release cohorts for threeyears following release.

A second key difference between thestudies is that the Pew/ASCA surveyincluded more than twice as many statesas the BJS studies. The Pew/ASCA survey

includes either 18 or 26 more states thanthe BJS 1994 recidivism study, dependingon which cohort is used as a point of comparison. The 12 states that wereincluded in both the Pew/ASCA 1999survey and the BJS 1994 study had anaverage recidivism rate of 47.9 percent

DATA FOr FirSTrElEASES ONlY

DATA FOr AllrElEASES

A aska A a a a

Ca orn a Ar zona

ind ana Arkansas

massach setts Ca orn a

m ss ss pp Connect c t*

montana Georg a

Ne raska i no s

New jerse ind ana*North Caro na iowa

Oregon Kansas

Penns van a Kent ck

Rhode is and lo s ana

So th Dakota m ch gan

m nnesota

m sso r

New Ha psh re

New mex coNew york

Oh o*

Ok aho a

So th Caro na*

Texas

utah

V rg n a

Wash ngton

West V rg n a

W scons n

W o ng

e a1

S s Pr d f rsR l s s rs s d r allR l s s

noteS: c u S u c r r p r y sr r s i r p r s rs rs r s

r y r, bu y ss r y b r rsr s r r urr s o s u r

r s s r y r i n rd k r y r s yp


39/48




for the 1999 cohorta figure closer tothe 51.8 percent reported by BJS for1994. When California is excluded fromthe national figures, the recidivism ratesfor the remaining states decline to 39.7percent and 38.5 percent for the 1999and 2004 release cohorts, respectively.These rates are similar to the 40.1 percentrate that BJS produced for its 1994 releasecohort when excluding California. Theinclusion of additional states contributesto a more representative nationalrecidivism rate.

A third difference is that the Pew/ASCAsurvey did not include individuals whowere released from prison in one stateand who may have been incarceratedsubsequently in another state. This is areflection of the self-report data gatheringprocess of the Pew/ASCA study. Statedepartments of correction reported on

people who returned to one of theirfacilities, which would not count a formeroffender who was incarcerated in anotherstate. The BJS study, on the other hand,did include out-of-state incarceration data.This is likely to impact states differently,depending on proximity to high-crimeareas in neighboring states or majorinterstate drug corridors, for example.

Finally, the BJS study collected data oninmates who were being released for thefirst time since beginning their currentsentence. Any individual who had beenreleased in a prior year and was releasedagain during 1994 on the same sentence

would be excluded from their analysis.In the Pew/ASCA study, only 13 statesreported data for first releases. Theremaining 28 states provided recidivismdata for all releases. These state reportingvariations and the out-of-state factor arelikely to account for a minimal part of the

NEW CONViCTiON TECHNiCAl ViOlATiON

A a a a A aska

Ar zona Arkansas

ind ana Ca orn a

iowa Connect c t

Kansas Georg a

massach setts Kent ck

m ch gan lo s ana

m nnesota montanam sso r New Ha psh re

Ne raska New mex co

North Caro na New york

Oh o Rhode is and

Penns van a West V rg n a

So th Caro na

Texas

utah

Wash ngtonW scons n

e a2

h w S s Cl ss R s s o rs W rR r Pr s

noteS: i s, m ss ss pp , n w J rs y, ok , or Wy r y s s w r p rs

r ur pr s r u yw u b up r ss s w subs qu sp s s S ud k v r k jur s r

r u u s r s b pr ssi n r d k r y w y ss y

rs r ur pr s


40/48




difference in the recidivism rates betweenthe two methods.

Jur s n s Within the 50 states and the District of Columbia there are hundreds of prison,probation and parole agencies (in additionto many more jails and communitycorrections agencies) operating withdifferent population and budget countingrules. The following notes are provided toexplain some of these differences and toaccount for many of the idiosyncrasies inthe reported data. The notes are based ondirect communication with state officials,but they are not a complete description of all counting issues.

Alaska Alaska operates a unified prisonand jail system. The number of personsreleased and returned to the custody of the Department of Corrections includesboth prisoners and an unspecifiednumber of individuals housed in jail.

Arkansas Since 2003 (women) and2004 (men), the Arkansas Department of Community Corrections has operated twodistinct programs that provide alternativesto traditional incarceration for adultoffenders who fail to comply with terms of parole supervision. This policy change hasimpacted the rate of return to prison for atechnical violation for the 2004 cohort.

Connecticut Connecticut operatesa unified prison and jail system. The

number of persons released and returnedto the custody of the Department of Corrections includes both prisoners andan unspecified number of individualshoused in jail.

Georgia Beginning in 2000, Georgiaprohibited misdemeanants from beingsupervised by state probation officers.Misdemeanants placed on probationwere supervised by private probationcompanies, county or municipalproviders. Prior to this change,

misdemeanants were subject to revocationto prison as a result of their probationstatus. As a result, an unspecified numberof misdemeanants may be present in the1999 release cohort.

Iowa Iowa reported data for its statefiscal year (July 1 through June 30) ratherthan calendar year.

Kansas Kansas reported data for its statefiscal year (July 1 through June 30) ratherthan calendar year. Data include offendersparoled to another criminal justice

jurisdiction if the offender was laterreleased from that jurisdiction during thestated time frame. The data also includeoffenders whose sentence has expired andwho will no longer be under the KansasDepartment of Corrections jurisdiction.For readmissions, if the offender hadbeen discharged, he or she can beadmitted and classified only as with anew sentence. For every readmission,the states conviction file was checked to


41/48




see if there were any convictions enteredwith the admission in which the offensewas committed while the offender was inthe community. This would then countas an admission with a new sentence.

Any crimes committed while the offenderwas incarcerated were not included.The admission was to have occurredwithin 36 months of release. Offenderswho were on post release/parole andreadmitted were counted as technicalviolators if no new conviction (that wascommitted in the community while theoffender was on post release/parole) wasfound with the new admission.

Massachusetts Massachusetts didnot have data on releases to probationfor 1999 so, in the interest of reportingcomparable data, releases to probationwere excluded for the 2004 release cohortas well.

New Hampshire New Hampshirereported data for its state fiscal year(July 1 through June 30) rather thancalendar year.

Texas Texas reported data for its statefiscal year (September 1 through August31) rather than calendar year.

Wisconsin Wisconsin monitorspersons three years from the dayof release, plus any subsequentreconfinement time in a Department of Corrections (DOC) facility experienced

during the three-year follow-up period.For example, if an individual is returnedto custody for 30 days within the three-year follow-up period, an additional 30days will be added to time during whichhe or she is monitored for the purposes of calculating a recidivism rate. Wisconsincounts case dispositions that go beyondthe three-year follow-up period if thenew crime took place during the follow-up period and disposition took placelater. For example, there is a 322-dayspan between the crime date and a finalcourt disposition. A person in the 2004release cohort who was subsequently re-admitted to prison at the very end of thefollow-up period (12/31/2007), whoseadmission was classified as violator-nonew sentence, but who later received aconviction for the crime that took placeduring the three-year follow-up period,would be counted as a new conviction for

the 2004 release cohort.

In addition, Wisconsin representspersons as recidivists (new conviction)who committed a crime within thethree-year at-risk period, and whosedisposition for that crime resulted in aprison admission. This means that, forexample, a person in the 1999 release

cohort who committed a crime in2000, but who was not apprehended,charged, convicted and sentenced toprison until 2008, is still counted as arecidivist (new conviction) under the

Wisconsin DOC numbers.


42/48



43/48


44/48



endnoteS

Charitable Trusts, December 2008), http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/Policy%20Framework.pdf.

16 The Continuing Fiscal Crisis in Corrections: Setting aNew Course(New York, NY: Vera Institute of Justice,

October 2010).

17 Ibid; Pew Center on the States, Ten StepsCorrections Directors Can Take to Strengthen Performance (Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts, May2008).

18 Ibid; Pew Center on the States, One in 100: BehindBars in America 2008(Washington, DC: The PewCharitable Trusts, February 2008); Pew Center on theStates, Prison Count 2010;Pew Center on the States,South Carolinas Public Safety Reform: Legislation EnactsResearch-based Strategies to Cut Prison Growth and Costs (Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts, June2010); Adrienne Austin, Criminal Justice Trends: KeyLegislative Changes in Sentencing Policy, 20012010(New

York: Vera Institute of Justice, September 2010).

19 Many offender reentry programs are funded by theU.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance,through the Second Chance Act of 2007.

20 Don A. Andrews, et al., Does Correctional Treatment

Work: A Clinically Relevant and PsychologicallyInformed Meta-analysis, Criminology28 (1990): 369404.

21 Pew Center on the States, The Impact of ArizonasProbation Reforms(Washington, DC: The Pew CharitableTrusts, March 2011).

22 Council of State Governments, Reentry PolicyCouncil, Report of the Re-Entry Policy Council: Charting theSafe and Successful Return of Prisoners to the Community (New York, NY: January 2005), http://reentrypolicy.org/.

23 Amy L. Solomon, Jenny W.L. Osborne, Laura Winterfield, et al., Putting Public Safety First: 13 ParoleSupervision Strategies to Enhance Reentry Outcomes (Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 2008), http:// www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/411791_public_safety_first.pdf.

24 National Governors Association, Improving PrisonerReentry Through Strategic Policy Innovations, (Washington,DC: National Governors Association, September 2005),http://www.nga.org/Files/pdf/0509PRISONERREENTRY.PDF.

25 Meghan Guevara and Enver Solomon, ImplementingEvidence-Based Policy and Practice in CommunityCorrections, Second Edition, (Washington, DC: NationalInstitute of Corrections, October 2009), http://nicic.gov/ Library/024107.

26 Pew Center on the States, Policy Framework toStrengthen Community Corrections.

27 Kansas SB 50 (1989).

28 Kansas SB 14 (2007).

29 Arizona SB 1476 (2008); California SB 678 (2009);Illinois SB 1289 (2009); South Carolina SB 1154 (2010).

30 Arizona SB 1476 (2008); Pew Center on the States,Getting in Sync: State-Local Fiscal Partnerships for PublicSafety(Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts, July2008). See also the discussion of performance incentivefunding in Pew Center on the States, Policy Framework toStrengthen Community Corrections.

31 National Research Council Committee on

Community Supervision and Desistance from Crime,Parole, Desistance from Crime, and Community Integration (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2007);Steve Aos, Marna Miller, and Elizabeth Drake, Evidence-Based Adult Corrections Programs: What Works and WhatDoes Not(Olympia, WA: Washington State Institutefor Public Policy, January 2006), http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/06-01-1201.pdf; Peggy B. Burke andMichael Tonry, Successful Transition and Reentry for SaferCommunities: A Call to Action for Parole(Silver Spring,MD: Center for Effective Public Policy, 2006).

32 Solomon et al., Putting Public Safety First.

33 Joan Petersilia, When Prisoners Come Home:Parole and Prisoner Reentry(New York, NY: OxfordUniversity Press, 2003); Michael Jacobson, DownsizingPrisons(New York, NY: New York University Press,2005); California Department of Corrections and


45/48



endnoteS

Rehabilitation, Expert Panel on Adult Offender Reentryand Recidivism Reduction Programs, Report to theCalifornia State Legislature: A Roadmap for Effective OffenderProgramming in California(Sacramento, CA: CaliforniaDepartment of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2007);

Jeremy Travis, Reflections on the Reentry Movement,Federal Sentencing Reporter20, no.2 (December 2007),http://www.jjay.cuny.edu/extra/president_articles/ ReflectionsOntheReentryMovement.pdf.

34 See, for example, Solomon et al., Putting Public SafetyFirst; James Austin, Todd Clear, Troy Duster, et al.,Unlocking America: Why and How to Reduce AmericasPrison Population(Washington, DC: The JFA Institute,2007); Jacobson, Downsizing Prisons; Petersilia, WhenPrisoners Come Home.

35 Don A. Andrews, Enhancing Adherence toRisk-Need-Responsivity: Making Quality a Matterof Policy, Criminology and Public Policy5, no 3(2006): 595602; Aos, Miller, and Drake, Evidence-Based Adult Corrections Programs; James Austin,What Should We Expect from Parole? Perspectives 30, no. 2 (2006): 4653; Peggy B. Burke, ParoleViolations Revisited: A Handbook on Strengthening ParolePractices for Public Safety and Successful Transition tothe Community(Washington, DC: National Instituteof Corrections, 2004); Burke and Tonry, Successful

Transition and Reentry for Safer Communities; FrancisT. Cullen and Paul Gendreau, Assessing CorrectionalRehabilitation: Policy, Practice, and Prospects, inCriminal Justice 2000, Vol. 3: Policies, Processes, andDecisions of the Criminal Justice System(Washington,DC: National Institute of Justice, 2000); Jacobson,Downsizing Prisons; Doris L. MacKenzie, What Worksin Corrections? (New York, NY: Cambridge UniversityPress, 2006); National Research Council, Parole,Desistance from Crime, and Community Integration; FayeS. Taxman, Supervision: Exploring the Dimensions

of Effectiveness, Federal Probation66, no. 2 (2002):1427; Faye S. Taxman, What Should We Expectfrom Parole, 3845; Faye S. Taxman, Reentry andSupervision: One Is Impossible Without the Other,Corrections Today69 no. 2 (2007): 98105, http:// www.dpscs.state.md.us/publicinfo/publications/pdfs/ dpp_corrections_today.pdf.

36 Aos, Miller, and Drake, Evidence-Based AdultCorrections Programs; National Research Council, Parole,Desistance from Crime, and Community Integration.

37 New Hampshire SB 500, 2010.

38 Illinois SB 1289, 2009.39 Aos, Miller, and Drake, Evidence-Based AdultCorrections Programs.

40 Austin et al., Unlocking America; Peggy B. Burke, Adam Gelb, and Jake Horowitz, When Offenders Breakthe Rules: Smart Responses to Parole and ProbationViolations(Washington, DC: Pew Center on the States,2007); Reentry Policy Council, Report of the Re-EntryPolicy Council: Charting the Safe and Successful Return of Prisoners to the Community(New York, NY: Council of

State Governments, 2005), http://www.reentrypolicy.org/ Report/About.

41 Pew Center on the States, The Impact of Hawaiis HOPEProgram on Drug Use, Crime and Recidivism,(Washington,DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts, January 2010).

42 Petersilia, When Prisoners Come Home; Joan Petersilia,Employ Behavioral Contracting for Earned DischargeParole, Criminology and Public Policy6, no. 4 (2007):807814 (2007); Jacobson, Downsizing Prisons; CaliforniaDepartment of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Expert

Panel on Adult Offender Reentry and RecidivismReduction Programs, Report to the California StateLegislature: A Roadmap for Effective Offender Programmingin California(Sacramento, CA: California Departmentof Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2007); JeremyTravis, Reflections on the Reentry Movement, FederalSentencing Reporter20, no. 2 (December 2007),http://www.jjay.cuny.edu/extra/president_articles/ ReflectionsOntheReentryMovement.pdf.

43 Arizona SB 1476 (2008); South Carolina SB 1154

(2010).44 Nevada AB 510 (2007); New Hampshire S 500(2010).

45 Timothy A. Hughes and Doris J. Wilson, ReentryTrends in the United States,(Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2002).


46/48



47/48


48/48

Documents

Pew Center on the States Recidivism Report