States Reducing Recidivism Results F - Bureau Of Justice Assistance
StatesDeliverResultsReducing recidivismJune 2014For years, elected state officials respondedto the public’s frustration with highcrime rates by making incarceration thecenterpiece of their crime policy. Suggestingthat “nothing works” to rehabilitateindividuals incarcerated in prisons and jails,policymakers across the political spectrum saw highrates of reoffense as inevitable, and keeping peoplewho committed crimes behind bars was seen as thebest way to ensure public safety.1Over the last 15 years, a series of developments hascontributed to a seismic shift in that mindset. Amongthese developments was a body of research that beganto emerge demonstrating that certain programs andapproaches to supervision can change some people’scriminal behaviors and help them succeed upon releasefrom incarceration. Encouraged by this research andthe success that programs were experiencing in theircommunities, in 2008, Congress passed the SecondChance Act, which established grant programs tostimulate further innovation at the state and local level.Today, improved reentry and recidivism reductionare cornerstones of state and local crime policiesacross the country. Governors routinely highlight theimportance of reducing recidivism in their state ofthe state addresses,2 and mayors, sheriffs, and otherlocal leaders across the country have establishedtask forces focusing on reentry in their cities andcounties.3Compelling evidence is now emerging that showsthat recidivism rates for an entire state can indeedchange. In 2012, the National Reentry cidivismRatePercentagePoint a200728.9%201026.0%-2.9%-10.0%North 200743.9%201040.8%-3.1%-7.1%Rhode Islandii200454.0%201048.9%-5.1%-9.4%South 56.2%201051.1%-5.1%-9.1%Three-YearReturns to PrisonIn North Carolina, the Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission computes recidivism rates on a biannual basis for the state. The mostrecent rates were reported for 2009 and 2011 release cohorts, computed for one-year and two-year intervals. Prior to adopting this newerprotocol of two-year intervals, the Sentencing Commission computed three-year recidivism rates for a FY2006 release cohort. It wasdecided to use the FY2006 three-year rate for this report, so that a similar follow-up period was available for all states. Moreover, the NorthCarolina Department of Public Safety computed the three-year rates for a 2010 release cohort on request for this report.iRhode Island computes its rates approximately every five years; the most recent recidivism reports computed rates for 2004 release cohorts and2009 release cohorts. Thus, there was not an available data point for 2007 against which to compare the 2010 rates. It was decided to comparethe 2004 recidivism rates with rates for 2010, which were computed on request for this report, to provide a longer timeframe of analysis.ii
Percentage-PointChange in ThreeYear RecidivismRatesPercentageChange in ThreeYear RecidivismRatesNumber ofInmatesReleased in2010Number FewerReturned to Prisonfor the 2010Release .9%15,536606Georgia-2.9%-10.0%21,874634North 1%18,417571Rhode Island-5.1%-9.4%2,596132South 237777RecidivismReductionsCenter (NRRC) highlighted seven states that hadachieved reductions in three-year recidivism rates for2005 to 2007 releases.4 In this report, the NRRChighlights eight additional states that have loweredtheir recidivism rates: Colorado, Connecticut,Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, RhodeIsland, South Carolina, and Wisconsin.This report focuses on statewide recidivism datafor adults released in 2007 and 2010 with a threeyear follow-up period, offering a current snapshotof criminal justice outcomes in these states. Thedata are as reported by the states to the Council ofState Governments Justice Center following variousmethodologies used by the states as noted below. Thedata highlighted from these states do not representa statistical sampling and cannot be used to proposefindings related to national recidivism rates.The information presented here, however, hasnational value for three reasons. First, the data inthis report (which follows release cohorts through2013) are more recent than those in any other reportexamining recidivism in multiple states. For example,the most recent federal reports on recidivism analyzedoutcomes for adults released in 2005 and followedthem through 2010.5 Second, the report highlightsan interesting cross-section of states representingdifferent regions of the United States, sizes of prisonpopulations, and correctional systems (two of thestates have a unified system, combining what aretraditionally separate state prison and county jailsystems into one system operated at the state level).Third, the data presented here and in the NRRC’s2012 report demonstrate that it is possible forstates to achieve significant statewide reductionsin their recidivism rates. While these reports focuson recidivism reductions in the past six years, acomparison of recidivism rates for at least someof these states over a longer period of time woulddemonstrate even larger reductions.The declines in recidivism rates highlighted in this reporthave occurred while these states have each experienceddeclines in incarceration rates and crime rates.(See appendix for incarceration and crime data.)2 i Reducing recidivism
Comparing Recidivism RatesData provided in this report compare the change in an individual state’s recidivism rate from one periodto another. This brief does not compare one state’s recidivism rate to another state’s recidivism ratefor several reasons. First, each state has its own definition of recidivism and its own methodologyfor calculating recidivism.6 For example, some state measurements of recidivism account only forreincarceration, while others include reconvictions that do not result in a prison or jail sentence.Furthermore, states differ in their definitions of “reincarceration.” For example, Pennsylvania and SouthCarolina both define recidivism as a return to the custody of the state Department of Corrections. InPennsylvania, however, state custody may include prison, county jail, or a Parole Violator Center,whereas state custody in South Carolina is defined as a prison sentence of more than 90 days. (Seecitations throughout this report for each state’s definition of and methodology for calculating recidivism.)Another factor that makes comparing recidivism rates across states problematic is the distinctcomposition of each state’s prison population. For instance, a state that sentences to prison largenumbers of people who are at low risk of reoffending will logically have a lower recidivism rate than astate that uses its prison facilities for people who are at higher risk of reoffending.The organization of a state’s correctional system can also influence its recidivism rates, as is the casefor Connecticut and Rhode Island, which operate unified correctional systems where all individuals areunder the state's jurisdiction rather than separate state prison and county jail systems.Because of these and other factors, comparing recidivism rates from state to state is discouraged.Three-year recidivismrate for 2007 prisonreleasesThree-year recidivismrate for 2010 prisonreleasesPercent declinein recidivism rate52.0 percent49.0 percent5.8 percentColorado72007200820092010201120122013Prison 34Admissions to ses from Prison10,11010,56510,80311,03310,16110,65710,506In 2007, Colorado was experiencing high rates ofrecidivism and one of the fastest-growing correctionspopulations in the United States. To address theseand other concerns, state lawmakers established theColorado Commission on Criminal and JuvenileJustice (CCJJ) to conduct a comprehensive analysisof the state’s sentencing and corrections policies, withreentry as one of its primary initiatives. The CCJJissued a report in 20088 based on its findings, andmany of the commission’s policy recommendationshave since been enacted. The work of the commissionnow focuses on evidence-based recidivism-reductioninitiatives in addition to promoting the cost-effectiveuse of criminal justice funds. State agencies haveReducing recidivism i 3
received a total of eight Second Chance Act awards tofurther support reentry initiatives.State officials point to these and other effortsthat incorporated the following strategies and havecontributed to the state’s reduction in recidivism:Investing in community-based treatment. In2010, the state reclassified certain substance use andpossession offenses, reducing the length of sentenceassociated with these offenses. The first year thislaw went into effect, it generated 1.4 million insavings for the Colorado Department of Corrections(CDOC), which the state reinvested in mentalhealth and substance use treatment programs in thestate. That same year, lawmakers reduced the lengthof time that certain adults under parole supervision(including those at low or medium risk of reoffense)can serve in prison when they violate the conditionsof their parole. More than 4.5 million in savingsgenerated through this change in policy was investedinto mental health and substance use treatment andother individualized services for people on parole. Promoting continuity of care from incarcerationto the community. CDOC continues to worktoward ensuring that individuals in administrativesegregation are not released directly to the communityand, instead, move through a step-down process andreceive services to promote a successful transition. Tailoring approaches to individual needs.Colorado State Board of Parole members receivetraining in motivational interviewing and apply theseskills in parole hearings. An evidence-based practice,motivational interviewing focuses on decreasingresistance and promoting an individual’s readiness forchange and commitment to programming. Providing incentives for participation inprograms designed to reduce likelihood of aperson reoffending. State law allows adults who areincarcerated and convicted of certain crimes to earnas much as 12 days per month off their sentenceby complying with rules and participating incorrectional programs such as cognitive-behavioraltherapy, mental health or substance use treatment,educational classes, and vocational training. What Works to Reduce RecidivismResearch has shown that certain practices and policies can reduce recidivism, including:Using risk and need assessments to inform case management.Research shows that correctional programs with the greatest impact on recidivism sort individualsbased on their risk of reoffending. Risk and need assessment tools examine both static (historical and/ordemographic) and dynamic (changeable) criminogenic needs (also known as criminogenic risk factors)that research has shown to be associated with criminal behavior and make someone more likely toreoffend. The assessment produces a risk score that allows programs to sort individuals based on risklevels in a consistent and reliable manner, tailor interventions, and prioritize resources for those who areat higher risk of reoffending.Establishing programs that have been shown to reduce recidivism and ensuring they areimplemented with fidelity.While specific approaches may vary across states, programs should be based on the best availablescience and research. Interventions that address criminogenic needs and take into account an individual’sresponsivity factors—such as motivation for change, learning styles, and mental health needs—are more4 i Reducing recidivism
likely to impact recidivism than those that do not. Programs should also establish desired outcomes andensure means for measuring progress, such as regular quality assessments and evaluations. Studies showthat implementing evidence-based programs and practices can reduce reoffense rates by 10 to 20 percent.9Implementing community supervision policies and practices that promote successful reentry.10Improved community supervision to provide greater support and access to services is critical to efforts toreduce recidivism. Supervision conditions and programs should be informed by an individual’s risk andneeds, focusing resources on those who are assessed to be at higher risk. Parole and probation officersshould also have a range of options for swift and certain sanctions and incentives that are proportionate tothe event and appropriate for the individual under supervision.The Council of State Governments Justice Center outlined these practices in The National Summit onJustice Reinvestment and Public Safety: Addressing Recidivism, Crime, and Corrections Spending,11 areport summarizing the innovative strategies discussed over the course of a summit of state leaders,federal officials, practitioners, and researchers in 2010. In 2012, the Council of State GovernmentsJustice Center and the National Reentry Resource Center released a series of user-friendly checklistsspecifically designed to help executive and legislative policymakers, state corrections administrators,and state reentry coordinators implement these proven strategies in their states.12Three-year recidivismrate for 2007 prisonreleasesThree-year recidivismrate for 2010 prisonreleasesPercent declinein recidivism rate43.9 percent40.0 percent8.9 ison 17Admissions to Prison10,5329,2229,1548,5148,2187,8747,411Releases from e state of Connecticut operates a unified correctional system, meaning that all offenders (i.e., those awaiting trial and those sentenced toincarceration) in the state are under the jurisdiction of the Connecticut Department of Correction (CTDOC). Connecticut does not have countyjails; therefore, offenders sentenced to any length of stay, even short-term “jail” sentences, are housed in a CTDOC facility. Data above reflectthe sentenced population; pretrial detainees have been excluded from these numbers.When Connecticut state leaders employed a justicereinvestment approach in 2004 to determine why theirstate had the third-fastest-growing prison population inthe country, they found that a significant percentage oftheir admissions to prison were for probation violations.As a result, state leaders enacted a legislative packagedesigned to reverse this trend. Between July 2003 andSeptember 2005, the number of adults on probationreturned to prison declined by 50 percent,14 whichenabled the state to bring inmates being housed outof state back to Connecticut, generating nearly 50million in cost savings, some of which was reinvestedinto mental health and substance use treatmentservices, community-based pilot projects, and otherReducing recidivism i 5
programs. In 2007, two parolees (whose circumstanceshad nothing to do with reforms implemented in 2004)invaded a home and committed a triple homicide,rocking the state. The prison population spiked, andlawmakers made additional changes to policy toimprove the parole decision-making process.Today, state leaders point to legislation enacted in2004 and 2008, along with additional subsequentimprovements to policy, as being instrumental in thestate’s declining recidivism rates: Reentry planning and intensive supervision.The legislation enacted in 2004 created an intensiveprobation supervision program for high-risk individualswho will be released to probation as part of a splitsentence. Within 90 days prior to their release, programstaff meet with participants to discuss their probationterms and develop a reentry plan that incorporatesneeds such as housing, employment, or substanceuse treatment. Upon release, they receive up to fourmonths of intensive probation supervision, followed bystandard probation supervision.Improving the response to people who violateconditions of probation. Individuals who violatethe terms of their probation receive up to 120 days of intensive supervision and services as an alternative toincarceration. At the start of this supervision period,individuals are assessed for risk and need and receiveappropriate services; they are also required to meet withtheir probation officer at least once each week. Intensivesupervision is followed by standard probation if theperson has complied with the terms of supervision.Providing continuity of care to people withmental health needs released from prison. TheConnecticut Department of Correction (CTDOC)and the University of Connecticut’s CorrectionalManaged Health Care partnered in 2006 to establisha licensed medical and mental health position inprisons and jails to assist in discharge planning andensure continuity of care for individuals with mentaldisorders being released to the community. Data collection and performance measurement.The state made a priority of holding communitybased programs—and community supervisionagencies—accountable for delivering results. To thatend, CTDOC upgraded its data tracking systemand created a Best Practices Unit in 2011 to measurethe agency’s performance and promote evidencebased policies and practices within the agency. Using a Justice Reinvestment ApproachJustice reinvestment is a data-driven approach to improve public safety, reduce corrections spending,and reinvest savings in strategies that can decrease crime and reduce recidivism. In the process,policymakers, experts, and stakeholders work together to analyze a variety of state-specific data todevelop practical policies that are based on the best available data and research and are tailored to thedistinct public safety needs of the jurisdiction. These policies are designed to generate cost savings, aportion of which can then be reinvested in correctional and community-based programs aimed at furtherreducing crime and recidivism, such as treatment for mental health and substance use disorders.To date, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), The Pew Charitable Trusts,and other organizations have supported justice reinvestment efforts in 31 states. Connecticut, Georgia,North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Wisconsin are among the states thathave both adopted the justice reinvestment approach and lowered recidivism rates.6 i Reducing recidivism
Three-year recidivismrate for 2007 prisonreleasesThree-year recidivismrate for 2010 prisonreleasesPercent declinein recidivism rate28.9 percent26.0 percent10.0 percentThree-year reconvictionrate for 2007 prisonreleasesThree-year reconvictionrate for 2010 prisonreleasesPercent declinein reconvictionrate27.9 percent26.6 percent4.7 percentGeorgia152007200820092010201120122013Prison 23Admissions to leases from 23,72922,48025,020567505424360276155134Parole Violators:New Offense Revocations* 2,9932,6202,6692,3902,3422,4632,065Parole PopulationParole Violators:Technical Revocations** Revocations can be to prison or to local jailsIn 2009, the Georgia Department of Corrections(GDC) developed “The Ten Step Framework,” aset of guiding principles for revamping communitysupervision through the use of risk assessments;targeted, evidence-based interventions andcommunity impact programs; and swift andproportionate sanctions and incentives. In 2011,Governor Nathan Deal established the SpecialCouncil on Criminal Justice Reform for Georgia,which was tasked with analyzing sentencing andcorrections data to develop policy options aimed ataddressing the growth of the state’s prison population,improve public safety, and hold offenders accountable.The analysis that resulted from this effort found thatmore than half of all prison admissions were for lowlevel drug and property offenses.Recommendations from the council resulted incomprehensive adult sentencing and correctionsreform legislation during the 2012 and 2013 sessions.The new laws emphasized rehabilitation overincarceration for nonviolent offenders, and prioritizedcommunity supervision and programs and servicesfocused on addressing reentry needs. Experts projectedthat, once fully implemented, these policies wouldReducing recidivism i 7
reduce the prison population by nearly 5,000 over 5years, saving the state at least 264 million.In 2013, Governor Deal established the Governor’sOffice of Transition, Support and Reentry topromote successful transition to the community afterincarceration, reduce recidivism, enhance collaborationamong stakeholders, and ensure that cost savingsfrom justice reforms are reinvested in evidence-based,community-focused services. Georgia officials havereceived two Second Chance Act Statewide RecidivismReduction grants and are pursuing several other grantsto support the continued development of reentrypolicies and practices focused on lowering recidivismamong people at highest risk of reoffending.Georgia officials cite various aspects of the aboveinitiatives that have contributed to the statewidereductions in reincarceration rates for people releasedfrom prison: Improved probation and parole supervision. Apartnership between the GDC and the State Board ofPardons and Parole has resulted in the movement ofcertain offenders, who would otherwise max out theirprison sentence with no community supervision,from prison to transitional centers. These individualsare paired with parole officers who help connect themto housing, employment, and treatment programs inthe community. Additionally, probation officers havebeen given the authority to impose community-basedgraduated sanctions for probation violators ratherthan recommending a prison sentence.Accountability courts. Reforms in 2012significantly expanded the use of accountabilitycourts, requiring that those courts use validatedrisk and need assessments to guide decisions abouttreatment and supervision, as well as incorporateprograms addressing criminogenic risk factors. Over 10 million was appropriated by the state legislatureto support and encourage the accountabilitycourts as they incorporate the new standards andestablish additional courts. Accountability courtshave expanded to better address mental health andsubstance use needs, as well as the unique needs ofveterans. Alternatives to incarceration. State officialshave created and expanded day reporting centers,residential substance abuse treatment centers, andintegrated treatment facilities in order to providethe courts with viable community-based alternativesto prison for individuals with mental health orsubstance use disorders. We think one of the most important parts of [ourstate’s reforms] is the data collection and evidencebased practices, essentially making sure we’respending money where results are predictable andthe best results will be achieved.G eorgia Governor N athan D eal8 i Reducing recidivism
Three-year recidivismrate for 2006 prisonreleasesThree-year recidivismrate for 2010 prisonreleasesPercent declinein recidivism rate35.8 percent28.9 percent19.3 Prison 69Admissions to leases from 45515,5889,458Probation Violators:New Offense Revocations* robation PopulationProbation Violators:Technical Revocations*Probation Violators:Graduated Sanctions-* Revocations can be to prison or to local jailsTo address rising incarceration rates and correctionscosts, North Carolina policymakers began a justicereinvestment process in 2009 that revealed thatprobation revocations accounted for 50 percent ofprison admissions that year, and of those admissions,76 percent did not involve a new offense. In 2011,policymakers enacted sweeping legislation focused onstrengthening community supervision and reducingrevocations. These improvements and resulting costsavings have enabled the state to close 9 correctionalfacilities, fund 175 additional probation officers, andsupport community-based treatment programs.State officials point to elements of this law, along withother improvements to policy and practice, that theybelieve contribute to declines in recidivism, including:Increased emphasis on individualized caseplanning. Risk and need assessments duringincarceration and community supervision informcase plans to ensure that people receive supervisionand services aimed at reducing their likelihood ofreoffending, prioritizing those assessed to have highrisk and high need. Ensuring fidelity to evidence-based practices.Probation officers receive monthly trainings tosupport and advance competencies in evidencebased practices, such as using risk and needassessments to inform case plans, building effectivealliances to increase motivation for change, andapplying incentives and sanctions. Reducing recidivism i 9
Graduated sanction options. Statewide,probation officers are utilizing “delegated authority”that allows them to impose certain sanctionswithout requiring an appearance before a judge.These sanctions—such as two- to three-day staysin local jails for recurring supervision violations—allow probation officers to respond quickly to theseviolations and provide a practical alternative tolengthier and more disruptive sanctions in prison. The establishment of five local reentry councilsacross the state. State funds support a dedicatedcoordinator for each council who builds relationshipswith service providers, probation and parole agencies,and other stakeholders. Through these councils,state officials maintain close connections with localorganizations engaged in reentry initiatives in theircommunity, and provide resources to adults releasedfrom prison who are seeking services to aid them intheir transition to the community. does a decline in reincarceration Rates Equate toIncreased Public Safety?Reducing recidivism is about changing the behavior of people who have committed crimes in the past.It is also about changing the business of the people who supervise, treat, and support people who areincarcerated and released to the community. Accordingly, anyone seeking to make sure recidivismreduction strategies are increasing public safety will need to look beyond reincarceration rates, whichare driven by two factors: people returning to prison because of a sentence for a new crime; and/orpeople returning to prison because they violated a condition of their community supervision.To what extent are reductions in recidivism highlighted in this report achieved by changes in rates atwhich people released from prison reoffend—as opposed to just tolerating more instances of noncompliance among people released from prison? Data immediately available from Georgia, NorthCarolina, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin describing felony conviction rates for people released fromprison suggest success in changing the behaviors of people released from prison. Reconvictiondata, however, capture only instances of more serious felony offenses for which a prison sentencewas deemed appropriate by the sentencing judge. Using all reconvictions or arrests as a measure ofrecidivism offers an opportunity to measure criminal justice involvement that may be more reflective ofcriminal behavior. The three-year reconviction rate (that is, reconviction for any crime, not only thosethat resulted in a return to prison) declined by 4.7 percent in Georgia and 9.8 percent in Wisconsin from2007 to 2009. In addition to reconviction data, some states, such as Pennsylvania, match arrest datato prison release cohorts. Pennsylvania reported a 7-percent decline in one-year rearrest rates and a2-percent decline in two-year rearrest rates from 2007–2011 release cohorts.10 i Reducing recidivism
Three-year recidivismrate for 2007 prisonreleasesThree-year recidivismrate for 2010 prisonreleasesPercent declinein recidivism rate43.9 percent40.8 percent7.1 rison 12Admissions to leases from 161Parole Violators:New Offense Revocations* 1,6961,8021,9831,9311,8361,9902,060Parole Violators:Graduated Sanctions2,0501,8641,7701,8521,6952,823Parole PopulationParole Violators:Technical Revocations*1,875* Revocations can be to prison or to local jailsSince 2006, Pennsylvania officials have madeconcerted efforts to address high recidivism ratesand corrections costs by using evidence-basedpractices with correctional populations, such as riskassessment to inform interventions. Four SecondChance Act grants have been awarded to stateagencies since 2009 to enhance reentry programs,including a Statewide Recidivism Reductionplanning grant for the Pennsylvania Departmentof Corrections (PDOC) in 2012. In the same year,policymakers undertook a justice reinvestmentapproach and enacted sweeping legislation toreduce inefficiencies in the current corrections andparole systems and establish more cost-effectiveapproaches to reduce recidivism among parolees.State officials point to various aspects of theseinitiatives as having contributed to the statewidereduction in recidivism, including the following:Targeted
Change in Three- Year Recidivism Rates Percentage Change in Three- Year Recidivism Rates Number of inmates Released in 2010 Number Fewer Returned to Prison for the 2010 Release Group The declines in recidivism rates highlighted in this report have occurred while these states have each experienced declines in incarceration rates and crime rates.
rates for 1999 and 2004 prison releases. The report shows that, in addition to the states highlighted in this brief, many other states have also achieved recidivism reductions. September 2012 Percentage change in recidivism rate* for 2005 and 2007 releases number fewer returned to Prison for the 2007 release grouP ** Kansas -15% 289 Michigan .
of recidivism [25], citing the Northpointe practitioner’s guide to COMPAS that states, “scores in the medium and high range garner more interest from super-vision agencies than low scores, as a low score would suggest there is little risk of general recidivism” [30]. There
Bureau of Research and Data Analysis within the Florida Department of Corrections. The present study examines the recidivism rate of Florida's released inmate population. While the use of recidivism as a performance indicator of the state's rehabilitative efforts can be debated, the analysis itself is of significant public importance.
re-arrest data on its former inmates, has no performance metrics to gauge the RPP’s impact on recidivism, and does not currently make any attempt to link RPP efforts to recidivism. We also found that the BOP has not yet completed a recidivism analysis r
courts that do not follow these practices. Cost Savings 36% Recidivism 153% The judge spends an average of 3 minutes or more per participants during status review hearings Cost Savings 4% Recidivism 84% The judge was assigned to treatment court on a voluntary basis Cost Savings 17% Recidivism 35% The judge's term is indefinite
enthusiasm, and kindness to help me stay focused and push through the challenges of writing my dissertation. I extend my gratitude to my dissertation committee: Drs. Aaron Mann, Lambert . attitude, criminal associates, and recidivism among jail ex-inmates. 1.1.1 Recidivism and jail
principles of Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) to reduce recidivism, which are based on that research. These principles identify the key characteristics of successful recidivism-reduction programs. The first three principles answer the questions of "who" to target for such programs, "what" to target, and "how" to target: 1.
Abrasive Jet machining can be employed for machining super alloys and refractory from materials. This process is based on surface erosion process. The process parameters that control metal removal rate are air quality and pressure, Abrasive grain size, nozzle material, nozzle diameter, stand of distance between nozzle tip and work surface. INTRODUCTION: Abrasives are costly but the abrasive .
