Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics,
Reintegration into the Community,
and Recidivism
Nathan James
Analyst in Crime Policy
January 12, 2015

Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL34287

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

Summary
The number of people incarcerated in the United States grew steadily for nearly 30 years. That
number has been slowly decreasing since 2008, but as of 2012 there were still over 2 million
people incarcerated in prisons and jails across the country. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)
reports that since 1990 an average of 590,400 inmates have been released annually from state and
federal prisons and almost 5 million ex-offenders are under some form of community-based
supervision.
Nearly all prisoners will return to their communities as some point. Offender reentry can include
all the activities and programming conducted to prepare prisoners to return safely to the
community and to live as law-abiding citizens. Some ex-offenders, however, eventually end up
back in prison. The BJS’s most recent study on recidivism showed that within five years of
release nearly three-quarters of ex-offenders released in 2005 came back into contact with the
criminal justice system, and more than half returned to prison after either being convicted for a
new crime or for violating the conditions of their release. Compared with the average American,
ex-offenders are less educated, less likely to be gainfully employed, and more likely to have a
history of mental illness or substance abuse—all of which have been shown to be risk factors for
recidivism.
Three phases are associated with offender reentry programs: programs that take place during
incarceration, which aim to prepare offenders for their eventual release; programs that take place
during offenders’ release period, which seek to connect ex-offenders with the various services
they may require; and long-term programs that take place as ex-offenders permanently reintegrate
into their communities, which attempt to provide offenders with support and supervision. There is
a wide array of offender reentry program designs, and these programs can differ significantly in
range, scope, and methodology. Researchers in the offender reentry field have suggested that the
best programs begin during incarceration and extend throughout the release and reintegration
process. Despite the relative lack of highly rigorous research on the effectiveness of some reentry
programs, an emerging “what works” literature suggests that programs focusing on work training
and placement, drug and mental health treatment, and housing assistance have proven to be
effective.
The federal government’s involvement in offender reentry programs typically occurs through
grant funding, which is available through a wide array of federal programs at the Departments of
Justice, Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services. However, only a handful of grant
programs in the federal government are designed explicitly for offender reentry purposes. The
Department of Justice has started an interagency Reentry Council to coordinate federal reentry
efforts and advance effective reentry policies.
The Second Chance Act (P.L. 110-199) was enacted on April 9, 2008. The act expanded the
existing offender reentry grant program at the Department of Justice and created a wide array of
targeted grant-funded pilot programs.

Congressional Research Service

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

Contents
Background ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Correctional System Statistics ......................................................................................................... 1
Population in Correctional Facilities ......................................................................................... 2
Offenders Under Community Supervision ................................................................................ 3
Probation ............................................................................................................................. 4
Parole................................................................................................................................... 4
Recidivism ................................................................................................................................. 5
Bureau of Justice Statistics 2005 Recidivism Study ........................................................... 6
Limitations of Recidivism Statistics.................................................................................. 10
Offender Reentry: A Brief Literature Review ................................................................................ 11
Offender Reentry Defined ....................................................................................................... 12
Program Effectiveness: The “What Works” Literature............................................................ 12
Employment ...................................................................................................................... 14
Substance Abuse Treatment .............................................................................................. 14
Education........................................................................................................................... 14
Mental Health .................................................................................................................... 15
Housing ............................................................................................................................. 15
Limitations of the “What Works” Literature ..................................................................... 16
Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 16
Federal Offender Reentry Programs .............................................................................................. 17
Offender Reentry Programs at the Department of Justice (DOJ) ............................................ 17
Offender Reentry Programs at Other Federal Agencies .......................................................... 18
The Department of Labor (DOL) ...................................................................................... 19
The Department of Education (DOE) ............................................................................... 19
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) ......................................... 19
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) ................................................... 20
Coordination Between Federal Agencies ................................................................................ 20
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 21

Figures
Figure 1. Number of Inmates Incarcerated in the United States, 2000-2013 ................................... 3
Figure 2. Number of Offenders Under Community Supervision, 2000-2013 ................................. 5
Figure 3. Proportion of Released Prisoners Arrested for the First Time at the End of the
Year and Cumulative Percentage of Released Prisoners Rearrested ............................................ 7
Figure 4. Proportion of Released Prisoners Rearrested, by Offense Type ....................................... 8
Figure 5. Proportion of Released Prisoners Rearrested, by Criminal History ................................. 9
Figure 6. Measured Recidivism Based on Different Definitions of Recidivism ........................... 10

Congressional Research Service

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

Tables
Table B-1. Authorized and Appropriated Funding for the DOJ Reentry Program, FY2001FY2008 ....................................................................................................................................... 32
Table B-2. Authorized and Appropriated Funding for the Second Chance Act Grant
Programs Administered by the Department of Justice, FY2009-FY2015 .................................. 32

Appendixes
Appendix A. Section-by-Section Summary of the Second Chance Act ........................................ 23
Appendix B. Appropriations for DOJ Reentry Grant Programs .................................................... 32

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 33

Congressional Research Service

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

Background
Over 95% of the prison population today will be released at some point in the future.1 Since 1990,
an average of 590,400 inmates have been released annually from state and federal prisons.2 The
Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has estimated that nearly threequarters of all released prisoners will be rearrested within five years of their release and about 6
in 10 will be reconvicted.3 Many studies have indicated that reentry initiatives that combine work
training and placement with counseling and housing assistance can reduce recidivism rates.4
According to the BJS, the average per prisoner cost of incarceration in state prison in 2010 was
approximately $28,000 per year.5 States collectively spent nearly $48.5 billion on their
correctional systems in 2010, the most recent year for which data are available.6
Offender reentry includes all the activities and programming conducted to prepare ex-convicts to
return safely to the community and to live as law-abiding citizens. Reentry programs are typically
divided into three phases: programs that prepare offenders to reenter society while they are in
prison, programs that connect ex-offenders with services immediately after they are released from
prison, and programs that provide long-term support and supervision for ex-offenders as they
settle into communities permanently. Offender reentry programs vary widely in range, scope, and
methodology. The best-designed programs, according to the research in the field, are those that
span all three phases.7

Correctional System Statistics
To understand the issue of offender reentry, one must first understand the ways in which exoffenders are released into the community. It is also worthwhile to analyze the population of
individuals serving sentences in correctional facilities, because the number of offenders reentering the community is necessarily related to the number and type of offenders serving prison
sentences. This section analyzes national data on the nation’s correctional system.

1

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Reentry Trends in the United
States,” http://www.bjs.gov/content/reentry/reentry.cfm; hereinafter “Reentry Trends.”
2
E. Ann Carson and Daniela Golinelli, Prisoners in 2012: Trends in Admissions and Releases 1991-2012, U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 243920, Washington, DC,
December 2013, p. 3.
3
Matthew R. Durose, Alexia D. Cooper, and Howard N. Snyder, Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 30 States in
2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010, NCJ 244205, April 2014, p. 1.
4
Wilkinson, Reginald A., Director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, “Offender Reentry: A
Storm Overdue,” Paper Prepared for Third National Forum on Restorative Justice, March 2002, on file with the author.
Hereinafter “A Storm Overdue.”
5
Tracey Kyckelhahn, State Corrections Expenditures, FY1982-2010, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ239672, Washington, DC, December 2012, p. 4, http://www.bjs.gov/
content/pub/pdf/scefy8210.pdf.
6
Ibid., p. 11.
7
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, “Learn About Reentry,” http://www.reentry.gov/learn.html.

Congressional Research Service

1

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

Population in Correctional Facilities
The correctional system includes two main forms of detention: jails and prisons. Jails, also known
as local lockups, are facilities generally used to temporarily detain individuals who have been
arrested or charged with a crime but not usually convicted.8 The jail population is thus extremely
fluid, with individuals usually staying for a matter of weeks, and includes individuals who may
never be convicted of a crime. Prisons, on the other hand, typically house individuals who have
been convicted of a crime and sentenced to a term of one year or longer. For this reason, the
prison population is less fluid than the jail population.
The number of inmates incarcerated in correctional facilities steadily increased between 2000 and
2008 when it reached its peak of nearly 2.4 million inmates. However, in recent years the number
of incarcerated individuals has declined. The number of inmates in prisons and local jails
decreased by 15,400 (-0.7%) inmates in 2009; 21,900 (-1.0%) inmates in 2010; 30,400 (-1.3%)
inmates in 2011; 11,300 (-0.5%) in 2012; and 9,000 (-0.4%) in 2013. The decrease in the
correctional population in 2009 was the result of a declining jail population, but in 2010 and
2011, there was a decrease in the number of inmates held in both jails and prisons. The overall
correctional population decreased again in 2012, but this was the result of a decline in the number
of inmates held in prison; the number of inmates held in jails increased. While there was a
decrease in the number of people incarcerated again in 2013, the number of people incarcerated in
prisons actually increased between 2012 and 2013. The increase in the number of people
incarcerated in prisons was offset by a decrease in the number of people incarcerated in jails.
Figure 1 shows the number of inmates incarcerated in the United States from 2000 to 2013 (the
most recent data available).

8

While this is generally the case, jails on occasion can also include individuals sentenced to prison terms lasting less
than one year (misdemeanors) and convicted felons in jurisdictions where the prisons are overpopulated.

Congressional Research Service

2

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

Figure 1. Number of Inmates Incarcerated in the United States, 2000-2013
Number of inmates in thousands
3,000

Number of inmates (in thousands)

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

0

Year
Jail

Prison

Source: The prison population counts were taken from U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2011 and Prisoners in 2013. The jail population counts were taken from
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Jail Inmates and Midyear
2013—Statistical Tables.

Given the fact that 95% of all inmates will eventually return to the community,9 the prison
population has a direct impact on offender reentry. As the prison population grows, increasing
numbers of ex-offenders are released from correctional facilities. Most of these ex-offenders are
required to undergo some form of community supervision as part of their release. The following
section explores the mechanisms and statistics surrounding the release of prisoners into the
community.

Offenders Under Community Supervision
Ex-offenders can be released into the community through a variety of different mechanisms.
Some offenders never serve prison sentences and instead serve their sentence on probation in
their communities under supervision. Others serve most of their sentences in correctional
facilities but are then released on parole to finish their sentences in their communities under
9

Reentry Trends.

Congressional Research Service

3

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

supervision. Lastly, some offenders serve out their entire sentences in correctional facilities and
are released unconditionally into the community.

Probation
Individuals who are found guilty of committing a crime that is deemed not serious enough for
imprisonment can be sentenced to serve their sentences under community supervision
(probation). Offenders on probation typically must adhere to certain conditions and check in
regularly with their probation officers. Violation of these conditions or failure to appear before
their probation officers can lead to further criminal sanctions, including incarceration. In some
instances, offenders can be sentenced to a mixed term of prison and probation.

Parole
Individuals who have served most of their sentences in a correctional facility are sometimes
eligible to complete their sentences in the community under conditional supervision. While some
states have a parole system in place, Congress abolished parole at the federal level effective
November 1, 1987. However, there is a small percentage of federal offenders who were sentenced
prior to November 1, 1987, who are still eligible for parole. The conditions associated with parole
can vary from case to case, but typically include drug testing and regular contact with a parole
officer. Violations of these conditions can result in the parolee returning to prison to serve out the
remaining portion of his or her sentence. There are two different kinds of parole: discretionary
and mandatory.

Discretionary Parole
States that use parole boards to determine whether a prisoner should be released into the
community have discretionary parole. Parole boards have the authority to conditionally release a
prisoner into the community based on a statutory or an administrative determination that the
prisoner is eligible.

Mandatory Parole
States that have statutory language determining when offenders should be released into the
community have mandatory parole. Jurisdictions that use determinate sentencing10 often include
provisions specifying when inmates should be conditionally released from prison after serving a
specified portion of their original sentences.
Figure 2 shows the number of offenders who were supervised in the community, either through
probation or through parole, during the period from 2000 to 2013 (the most recent data available).
The data show that the majority of offenders on community supervision are on probation (84%,
on average, between 2000 and 2013). Also, trends in the number of people on community
supervision mirror those of incarceration. The total number of people on community supervision
peaked in 2007 (compared to the number of people incarcerated, which peaked in 2008) and it
10

A determinate sentence is a fixed sentence, while an indeterminate sentence is typically expressed as a range (i.e., 5
to 10 years).

Congressional Research Service

4

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

has been declining since. The decline in the total number of people on community supervision has
largely been driven by a decline in the number of people on probation. The number of people on
parole has actually increased since 2007, which might reflect the fact that a number of inmates
who were sentenced to terms of incarceration in the 1990s and early 2000s are now being
released on parole.
Figure 2. Number of Offenders Under Community Supervision, 2000-2013
Number of offenders in millions
Number of people under community supervision (in millions)

6

5

4

3

2

1

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

0

Year
Probation

Parole

Source: The number of probationers and parolees were taken from U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Probation and Parole in the United States, 2013.

The relationship between the prison and parole populations is an important one for a number of
reasons. Offenders serving their sentences in prison have generally committed more serious
crimes than offenders who serve their sentences in jail or on probation; as previously noted, the
prison population typically includes individuals sentenced to more than a year of incarceration.
Parolees, meanwhile, often return to the community after a prolonged period of incarceration and
usually face a period of adjustment.

Recidivism
Recidivism is often defined as the rearrest, reconviction, or reincarceration of an ex-offender
within a given time frame. As a result of this broad definition of recidivism, most studies include
technical violations of an offender’s parole or probation (such as failing a drug test or not

Congressional Research Service

5

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

showing up for a meeting, for example) within their general recidivism statistics. Rearrest
statistics also include individuals who are found not guilty of the charges. For these reasons, some
studies have focused on reincarceration with a new prison sentence as a more accurate recidivism
statistic, arguing that technical violations are really an extension of an offender’s original prison
term and not a newly committed crime. Essentially, there are two competing philosophies about
what recidivism should mean.11 On the one hand are those who argue that any new contact with
the criminal justice system, no matter how minor, should be considered recidivism on the part of
an ex-offender. On the other hand are those who argue that recidivism should be more narrowly
defined as the commission of a new crime, resulting in a new sentence, by an ex-offender. What
one includes in the definition of recidivism has a substantial impact on the rate of recidivism
reported.
Regardless of what definition is used, recidivism is a difficult subject to study. Tracking
recidivism involves following the cases of individuals for a number of years and relying on state
or national-level data sets that contain inherent inaccuracies. For example, if an offender is
released in California but commits a new crime in Maine, the researchers must be able to match
those two records together to make a definitive statement about recidivism. This match is
typically done by consulting the FBI’s master database of convictions; however, as we will see
later, this database contains omissions that may affect the results of recidivism studies. A number
of studies have been conducted on this issue, and most states have calculated their own recidivism
rates. However, for the sake of providing the most comprehensive overview of recidivism, this
section focuses on the most recently conducted national-level study.

Bureau of Justice Statistics 2005 Recidivism Study
The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) study on the recidivism of a cohort of inmates released in
1994 was, at the time, one of the most comprehensive national-level recidivism studies ever
conducted.12 The BJS recently published a new report that examined the recidivism rates for
404,638 prisoners released in 30 states for five years after their release from prison in 2005.13 The
prisoners included in the study represent approximately three-quarters of the inmates released in
2005. The 2005 BJS recidivism study used a larger sample and a longer follow-up period than the
1994 study.14
Data show that by the end of the five-year follow-up period, approximately three-quarters
(76.6%) of prisoners released in 2005 were rearrested. Furthermore, the BJS found that most
released prisoners were rearrested within one year of being released. By the end of the first year
following release, 43.4% of inmates were rearrested. The longer released prisoners went without
11

For an expanded discussion of the varying definitions of recidivism, refer to Allen Beck, Recidivism: A Fruit Salad
Concept in the Criminal Justice World, Justice Concepts, available at http://www.justiceconcepts.com/recidivism.pdf.
12
The 1994 BJS study examined the rearrest, reconviction, and reincarceration of prisoners from 15 states three years
after their release in 1994. The study tracked 272,111 prisoners, or almost two-thirds of all the prisoners released from
state prisons in 1994. Patrick A. Langan and David J. Levin, Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994, NCJ193427,
June 2002.
13
Matthew R. Durose, Alexia D. Cooper, and Howard N. Snyder, Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 30 States in
2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010, NCJ 244205, April 2014.
14
The BJS cautions that because of factors like the different attributes of the prisoners included in the 1994 and 2005
study, better data on inmates released in 2005 who died during the follow-up period, and improvements in the
completeness of criminal history records, the results of the 2005 study are not directly comparable to the results of the
1994 study. Ibid., pp. 2-5.

Congressional Research Service

6

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

being rearrested, the less likely they were to be rearrested. As shown in Figure 3, compared to the
arrest rate of 43.4% in the first year, 28.5% released prisoners who were not arrested in the first
year were arrested for the first time in the second year after release. The proportion of released
prisoners who were arrested for the first time over the course of the last three years of the followup period continued to decrease.
Figure 3. Proportion of Released Prisoners Arrested for the First Time at the End of
the Year and Cumulative Percentage of Released Prisoners Rearrested
90%
80%

76.6%
73.0%
67.8%

70%
59.5%

Percent arrested

60%
50%

43.4%

40%
28.5%

30%

20.5%

20%

16.1%

13.3%

10%
0%
Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Year after release
Arrested for the first time during the year

Cumulative percentage of prisoners arrested

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Recidivism of Prisoners
Released in 30 States in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010.
Notes: The denominators for the proportion of released prisoners arrested for the first time during the year
were 404,638 for year one; 229,035 for year two; 163,679 for year three; 130,128 for year four; and 109,186 for
year five. The numerators include released prisoners who were arrested during the year who had not been
arrested since release.

Data show that a greater proportion of released property offenders were rearrested than violent,
drug, and public order offenders (see Figure 4). By the end of the five year follow-up period,
82.1% of released property offenders were rearrested, compared to 76.9% of drug offenders,
73.6% of public order offenders, and 71.3% of violent offenders. Data show that the general
pattern of recidivism shown in Figure 3 continued regardless of the offenses for which released
prisoners were incarcerated. Most released offenders, regardless of their offense, were likely to be
rearrested within one year of being released and the increase in the proportion of rearrested
prisoners started to slow the longer prisoners had been out of prison.

Congressional Research Service

7

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

Figure 4. Proportion of Released Prisoners Rearrested, by Offense Type
90%
80%
70%

Percent arrested

60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
6

12

24

36

48

60

Time after release (in months)
Property

Drug

Public Order

Violent

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Recidivism of Prisoners
Released in 30 States in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010.

The BJS also found that prisoners with longer criminal histories were more likely to be rearrested
within five years of being released. Data show that 86.5% of released prisoners with 10 or more
prior arrests were rearrested within five years (see Figure 5). In comparison, 60.8% of released
prisoners with four or fewer prior arrests and 75.9% of released prisoners with five to nine prior
arrests were rearrested within five years.

Congressional Research Service

8

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

Figure 5. Proportion of Released Prisoners Rearrested, by Criminal History
100%
90%
80%

Percent arrested

70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
6

12

24

36

48

60

Time after release (in months)
10 or more prior arrests

5-9 prior arrests

4 or fewer prior arrests

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Recidivism of Prisoners
Released in 30 States in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010.

As previously discussed, the definition of “recidivism” can affect measured recidivism. The data
from the BJS study bear this out. Arrest is the broadest definition of recidivism, and when this
definition is used it produces the highest measured recidivism (see Figure 6). More restrictive
definitions of recidivism result in lower measured recidivism. For example, 76.6% of prisoners
released in 2005 were rearrested within five years, but 60.0% were adjudicated,15 55.4% were
convicted for a new crime, 55.1% were returned to prison,16 44.9% were incarcerated,17 and
28.2% were imprisoned.18

15

“Adjudicated” refers to arrests that resulted in a subsequent court adjudication or disposition (e.g., convictions,
dismissals, acquittals, or deferred adjudications).
16
“Returned to prison” refers to arrests that resulted in a conviction with a disposition of a prison sentence or when
prisoners were returned to prison without a new conviction due to technical violations of the terms of their release (e.g.,
failing a drug test or missing an appointment with a parole officer).
17
“Incarcerated” refers to arrests that resulted in a prison or jail sentence.
18
“Imprisoned” refers to arrests that resulted in a prison sentence.

Congressional Research Service

9

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

Figure 6. Measured Recidivism Based on Different Definitions of Recidivism
90%
80%

Precent recidivated

70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
6

12

24

36

48

60

Time after release (in months)
Arrested

Return to prison

Adjudication

Conviction

Incarceration

Imprisonment

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Recidivism of Prisoners
Released in 30 States in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010.
Notes: “Adjudication” refers to arrests that resulted in a subsequent court adjudication or disposition (e.g.,
convictions, dismissals, acquittals, or deferred adjudications). “Conviction” refers to arrests that resulted in a
subsequent court conviction. “Incarceration” refers to arrests that resulted in a prison or jail sentence.
“Imprisonment” refers to arrests that resulted in a prison sentence. “Return to prison” refers to arrests that
resulted in a conviction with a disposition of a prison sentence or when prisoners were returned to prison
without a new conviction due to technical violations of the terms of their release.

Limitations of Recidivism Statistics
The data used in the BJS come from official records maintained by the states’ and the Federal
Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI’s) official criminal history repositories. These repositories
understate the actual recidivism levels to some unknown extent because they rely on local police
agencies and courts to supply them with notifying documents. These documents are not always
filed by local police departments or courts, however. In addition, if the offender provided a
different name or a fraudulent identity document to police, and this misinformation was not
discovered, they would likely not be captured by the data. Lastly, even if the criminal is correctly
identified and the document is sent to the repository, the repository may not be able to match the
person identified in the document with their records. This could occur, for example, if the
document that has been submitted is filled out incorrectly or is illegible.

Congressional Research Service

10

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

Moreover, as previously noted, there is some debate about what kind of outcome measure should
be included when measuring recidivism. Should recidivism statistics include any contact with the
criminal justice system by an ex-offender? Or should recidivism statistics be limited to the
commission of crimes by ex-offenders that result in new convictions or new sentences? The BJS
study showed wide differentials between general recidivism, which includes any contact with the
criminal justice system, and re-conviction rates for new crimes. The length of the follow-up
period will also play a role in the recidivism statistics that are generated. The BJS study shows
that recidivism, no matter how recidivism is measured, continues to climb, albeit at a decreasing
rate, as the length of the follow-up period increases.
For all of these reasons, caution should be taken when attempting to draw conclusions about the
efficacy of policy measures based solely on recidivism statistics. When using recidivism statistics
to evaluate a program, it is important to understand exactly what is included in the definition of
recidivism. For example, consider the following hypothetical scenario: a program is evaluated
and shows significant decreases in the number of ex-offenders that are convicted of new crimes
and sentenced to new prison terms; however, the number of ex-offenders arrested for violating
their parole actually increased. Was this program successful or not? Did it make society safer or
not? This may well be an unlikely scenario, but it calls attention to the fact that recidivism may
mean different things to different people. While recidivism statistics remain the best information
available concerning whether ex-offenders come into contact with the criminal justice system
after being released from prison and what the nature of that contact is, they are but one factor to
be considered when evaluating the efficacy of a program, because of the concerns outlined above.

Offender Reentry: A Brief Literature Review
The vast majority of prisoners currently being detained in secure facilities will, someday, be
released into the community, and more offenders are transitioning into the community today than
ever before. Offender reentry is a complex issue that touches on a wide range of social and
governmental networks and programs. Offender reentry policies can vary significantly from state
to state, and from community to community within particular states. The policies affecting
prisoners and the kinds of programs available to them both in and out of prison depend on a
variety of factors, including the availability of funding for social programs within states and
communities and the number of private nonprofit and religious organizations operating in a given
community. The federal government plays a supporting role through the numerous grant funding
opportunities (discussed below). Complicating factors affecting how offender reentry works in a
given community can include
•

the varying types of sentences handed down,

•

the different kinds of release mechanisms available to judges,

•

the types of programs provided in prisons by correctional systems,

•

the intensity of supervision provided or required by the parole or releasing
agency,

•

the family and community support available to the offender,

•

the kinds of social services available in the offender’s community, and

Congressional Research Service

11

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

•

the status of the local economy and the offender’s ability to obtain employment.19

Offender Reentry Defined
Before any discussion of offender reentry programs, however, it is useful to comment on what
constitutes offender reentry. Some observers note that offender reentry is the natural byproduct of
incarceration, because all prisoners who are not sentenced to life in prison and who do not die in
prison will reenter the community at some point. According to this school of thought, reentry is
not a program or some kind of legal status but rather a process that almost all offenders will
undergo.20 A variant on this approach to reentry is the concept that offender reentry, “simply
defined, includes all activities and programming conducted to prepare ex-convicts to return safely
to the community and to live as law abiding citizens.”21 The basic idea here is that every activity
and process that a prisoner undergoes while in the judicial and correctional systems will have
some nexus with their reentry into the community.
Although this broad definition of reentry certainly encompasses all the activities that may
impinge on or affect a prisoner’s reentry into society, it may be a cumbersome one for the
purposes of crafting and evaluating government policies. For example, it is difficult, if not
impossible, to measure the outcome of a reentry program if one includes in the definition of
reentry every activity that a prisoner undergoes during his time in the criminal justice system.
This has led many in the field to focus on a more narrow and thus more manageable definition of
reentry. This more narrow definition is often stated in two parts: correctional programs that focus
on the transition to the community (such as prerelease, work release, halfway houses, or other
programs specifically aiming at reentry) and programs that have initiated some form of treatment
(such as substance abuse, life skills, education, or mental health) in prison that is linked to
community programs that will continue the treatment once the prisoner has been released.22
Narrowing the definition of reentry thusly allows policy makers to focus on programs that
expressly aim to manage the transition from detention to the community.

Program Effectiveness: The “What Works” Literature
Compared with other social science fields, there has been a relative lack of rigorously designed
studies on the issue of offender reentry. Nevertheless, in recent years, there has been increasing
attention on this issue and a number of new studies have been published. This has allowed
academics to undertake some of the first broad meta-analyses23 of offender reentry studies. Some
of these studies have hewn closely to the “what works” paradigm created by University of
Maryland researchers for a National Institute of Justice report to Congress.24 This concept was
19
Richard P. Seiter and Karen R. Kadela, “Prisoner Reentry: What Works, What Does Not, and What Is Promising,”
Crime & Delinquency, vol. 49, no. 3, 2003, pp. 360-388; hereinafter “Prisoner Reentry: What Works.”
20
Questioning the Evidence, 4-5.
21
Questioning the Evidence, p. 5.
22
Prisoner Reentry: What Works, p. 370.
23
Meta-analyses are a type of systematic review of studies that allow researchers to draw conclusions across a wide
range of studies by using statistical methods to derive quantitative results from the analysis of multiple sources of
quantitative evidence.
24
Lawrence W. Sherman, Denise Gottfredson, Doris MacKenzie, John Eck, Peter Reuter, and Shawn Bushway,
Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising, National Institute of Justice, 1997.

Congressional Research Service

12

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

adapted to the field of offender reentry in a 2003 St. Louis University Study.25 The “what works”
literature attempts to identify programs that are effective by creating a scoring system to evaluate
studies based on whether they can be proven to have an impact. Inherent to this approach is the
need to identify program evaluations that provide evidence concerning the effect the program had
on certain outcome measures. The “what works” paradigm essentially focuses on whether studies
have accomplished the following things:
•

controlled for variables in their analysis that may have been the underlying cause
of any observed connection between the program being studied and the outcome
measures being analyzed;

•

determined whether there are measurement errors resulting from problems with
the study, including such things as participants being lost over time or low
response rates to interview requests; and

•

calculated the statistical power of the analysis to detect the program’s effects on
outcome measures. Included in this category are things such as sample size and
the base rate of crime in the community.26

The “what works” model uses these core criteria to place studies into five distinct categories, with
category 5 being the most scientifically rigorous, and thus considered most effective, studies. The
model then uses these criteria to identify programs that, based on the evidence considered, have
been proven to work, programs that are promising, and programs that do not work.
The National Reentry Resource Center (NRRC), in collaboration with the Urban Institute (UI),
developed the What Works in Reentry Clearinghouse (Clearinghouse). The Clearinghouse
provides access to research on the effectiveness of a variety of reentry programs and practices.27
The criteria established by the UI for which studies would be included in the Clearinghouse
closely hew to the “what works” model. First, in order for a study to be included in the
Clearinghouse it must evaluate whether a particular program, practice, or policy improves reentry
outcomes for returning prisoners and the effect of the intervention on at least one of a number of
relevant outcomes (e.g., recidivism, substance use, housing, employment, and mental health). If
these criteria are met, then the study must also satisfy the following minimum set of standards in
terms of methodological rigor:
•

The study must employ either random assignment or quasi-experimental methods
with matched groups or statistical controls for differences between groups.

•

The sample size must be at least 30 individuals in both the treatment and
comparison groups.

•

The study must have either been conducted by an independent researcher or
published in a peer-reviewed journal.

25

Prisoner Reentry: What Works.
Prisoner Reentry: What Works, pp. 370-373.
27
The Council of State Governments, Justice Center, National Reentry Resource Center, What Works in Reentry
Clearinghouse, http://whatworks.csgjusticecenter.org/.
26

Congressional Research Service

13

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

Employment
The conventional wisdom is that post-release employment is one of the most important elements
for an ex-offender to successfully transition back into the community.28 Released prisoners
frequently identify employment as one of the most important factors in their efforts to stay crimefree after incarceration.
While studies have shown that employment can aid in preventing recidivism, in general, research
on the relationship between participation in employment programs and recidivism has yielded
mixed results. The Clearinghouse included five studies that examined the effects of programs that
provided job training and/or post-release employment services for prisoners. Of these five studies,
only two found that the program helped reduce recidivism, though neither program had a
significant effect on post-release employment. Another program had a positive effect on helping
released prisoners find post-incarceration employment, though this program did not have an
effect on recidivism. Research on the effect of work release programs was mixed; half of the six
studies in the Clearinghouse found that work release program either reduced recidivism or helped
prisoners find post-release employment while the other half did not. A majority of the research
found that prisoners who participated in prison industries had lower levels of recidivism.

Substance Abuse Treatment
For many prisoners who recently returned to their communities, substance abuse is often closely
related to their difficulties with housing, employment, and mental health.29 Generally, research in
the Clearinghouse indicates that substance abuse treatment can help reduce recidivism and
substance abuse amongst program participants, especially if the substance abuse treatment is
provided in a therapeutic community (TC) setting.30 There were 16 studies in the Clearinghouse
that evaluated the effectiveness of TC substance abuse treatment, and most indicated that program
participation had a positive effect on both recidivism and substance abuse. Research also suggests
that aftercare can help promote positive outcomes for program participants, but these results
could have been affected by selection bias. A majority of studies that evaluated non-TC substance
abuse programs found either strong to moderate evidence that the programs reduced recidivism.

Education
Educational credentials are increasingly important in order to obtain employment in a more
competitive global economy. However, many prisoners have low levels of educational attainment.
To help prepare prisoners for the workforce after they leave prison, many correctional facilities
offer educational programs, including adult basic education (ABE), high school or GED
programs, college or post-secondary programs, and vocational training.31 Research included in
the Clearinghouse show that post-secondary education had a strong effect on reducing recidivism,
28
The Council of State Governments, Justice Center, National Reentry Resource Center, What Works in Reentry
Clearinghouse: Employment, http://whatworks.csgjusticecenter.org/focus_areas/employment-topic.
29
The Council of State Governments, Justice Center, National Reentry Resource Center, What Works in Reentry
Clearinghouse: Substance Abuse, http://whatworks.csgjusticecenter.org/focus_areas/substance-abuse.
30
Therapeutic communities offer an environment in which participants receive treatment and other services in a
housing area separated from the rest of the incarcerated population.
31
The Council of State Governments, Justice Center, National Reentry Resource Center, What Works in Reentry
Clearinghouse: Education, http://whatworks.csgjusticecenter.org/focus_areas/education.

Congressional Research Service

14

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

while there was a more modest effect for ABE programs. Studies of GED programs show that
participants were no less likely to recidivate than non-participants. However, it is difficult to draw
any definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of any of these programs because there were a
limited number of studies that met the criteria for inclusion.32 There was more research on
vocational education programs, but the findings from these studies were mixed. The research on
vocational education programs suggests that the quality of the program may be an important
factor in achieving reductions in recidivism.

Mental Health
A significant number of prisoners have problems with mental illness, and these problems might
co-occur with a substance abuse or a physical health problem.33 Research on the effectiveness of
prison-based mental health treatment suggests that these programs can help reduce recidivism.
The Clearinghouse includes four studies that evaluated programs that offered a continuity of care
approach, and all four found significant reductions in recidivism amongst participants.34
Evaluations of three other programs that focus on cognition and mental well-being, but which are
not focused on prisoners with a diagnosed mental illness, suggest that these “curriculum-based”
treatment programs can help reduce recidivism. For example, a program that provided 70 weeks
of classes (including a phase that incorporates a cognitive-behavioral approach) that focused on
problem solving, goal setting, managing stress and fear, and improving cognitive skills, was
found to have a positive effect on recidivism.

Housing
Acquiring housing is a challenge that most individuals face soon after leaving prison. Obtaining
housing is complicated by several factors, including the scarcity of affordable and available
housing, legal barriers, discrimination against ex-offenders, and strict eligibility requirements for
federally subsidized housing.35 Like many other reentry programs, the research on the effect of
halfway houses on recidivism is mixed. There were three studies in the Clearinghouse that
evaluated the effectiveness of halfway housing programs. Two of the studies found that the
programs had no effect on recidivism. However, the most methodologically rigorous of the three
studies suggests that halfway houses can reduce recidivism. The effect of halfway housing
programs on recidivism appears to be largely determined by a participant’s level of risk to
recidivate (participants that are at a higher level of risk to recidivate are more likely to benefit)
and by the quality of the particular program.36

32
There was one study that evaluated an ABE program, two that evaluated GED programs, and another two the
evaluated post-secondary education programs.
33
The Council of State Governments, Justice Center, National Reentry Resource Center, What Works in Reentry
Clearinghouse: Mental Health, http://whatworks.csgjusticecenter.org/focus_areas/mental-health.
34
Generally speaking, programs that use a continuity of care approach provide intensive case management while the
prisoner is incarcerated, refer him or her to outside service providers prior to release, and continue to offer post-release
case management and other services in the community.
35
The Council of State Governments, Justice Center, National Reentry Resource Center, What Works in Reentry
Clearinghouse: Housing, http://whatworks.csgjusticecenter.org/focus_areas/housing.
36
Ibid.

Congressional Research Service

15

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

Limitations of the “What Works” Literature
A review of the research in the Clearinghouse shows that there is a dearth of high-quality research
on the effectiveness of many reentry programs. While there were 16 studies on the effectiveness
of TC-based substance abuse treatment that were methodologically rigorous enough to be
included in the Clearinghouse, there was only one study of an ABE program, two studies of GED
programs, and three studies of halfway houses. The lack of a robust body of literature on the
effectiveness of some reentry programs can make it difficult to determine whether a program is
indeed effective.
It is important to note here that just because a program has been reported to work in one location,
or for a certain population, does not necessarily mean that it can be just as effective in other
locations or among other populations. A number of factors can impinge on a program’s
effectiveness in any given location. For example, while knowing that a program has worked in
the past can provide a model or blueprint to guide policy practitioners in other locations, how a
program is implemented is just as important to its ultimate success as the underlying model that it
is based on. The most effective model program can be compromised if it is not implemented
properly. In addition, geographic, demographic, and other differences between locations can
affect whether a program that succeeded in one place succeeds in another. Nevertheless, knowing
that a program has worked in the past is of use to policy makers as they consider where to
allocate funding and other resources.

Conclusions
After reviewing the available literature, some patterns appear to emerge. Many of the programs
that have been proven to be effective share some of the same attributes, regardless of whether
they focus on vocational training, substance abuse prevention, mental health services, or
obtaining housing. The attributes shared by most of these programs include the following:
•

they start during institutional placement, but take place mostly in the community;

•

they are intensive in nature, lasting typically at least six months;

•

they focus services on individuals determined to be at high risk of recidivating
through the use of risk-assessment classifications; and

•

if they are treatment programs, they use cognitive-behavioral treatment
techniques, matching particular therapists and programs to the specific learning
characteristics of the offenders.37

The research on recidivism suggests that ex-offenders might be best served engaging in reentry
services during their first year after release since that is when they are the most likely to
recidivate.

37

Questioning the Evidence, pp. 6-7.

Congressional Research Service

16

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

Federal Offender Reentry Programs
Following is a brief description of the main federal programs that have been used to help state
and local entities fund activities relating to the reintegration of ex-offenders into local
communities. Some of these programs may no longer be receiving funding; these programs are
identified below. Other programs that are currently funded may not provide funding for offender
reentry purposes every fiscal year. Nevertheless, these programs have been included to provide a
comprehensive look at the universe of federal resources that could be used for offender reentry
purposes.

Offender Reentry Programs at the Department of Justice (DOJ)
The first reentry-specific program at the DOJ was the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry
Initiative (SVORI), which was coordinated by the Office of Justice Programs (OJP). The SVORI
was a federal offender reentry pilot program for adult offenders that focused on coordinating the
way federal agencies distribute offender reentry funding. The main federal agencies involved
were the Departments of Justice, Labor, Education, and Housing and Urban Development. As part
of SVORI, their objective was to help state and local agencies navigate the wide array of existing
state formula and block grants and to assist the states and communities to leverage those
resources to create comprehensive offender reentry programs. The program distributed $110
million to 69 grantees and concluded in FY2005.
An evaluation of SVORI programs was released in December 2009.38 The evaluation, among
other things, evaluated the post-release outcomes of participants in 16 programs (12 adult and 4
juvenile) in 14 states.39 The evaluation found that there was little difference in the reported
reentry programming needs between offenders who participated in SVORI programs and those
who did not participate. Inmates who participated in SVORI programs were more likely to
receive reentry programming and services than those who did not participate, but not all SVORI
program participants received programming or services. The researchers also found that the
provision of services for program participants was below the expressed need for services.
Moreover, the provision of services decreased after the inmates were released from confinement.
The researchers found that adults who participated in the SVORI program were moderately more
likely than non-participants to find housing and employment, not use drugs, and self-report less
criminal behavior. However, improvement on these measures (i.e., housing, employment, drug
use, and criminal behavior) did not translate into lower levels of reincarceration. Juvenile males
who participated in SVORI programs were more likely than non-participants to have a job with
benefits 15 months after being released, but there was no significant difference between program
participants and non-participants in terms of substance abuse, physical health, mental health, or
recidivism.

38
Pamela K. Lattimore and Christy A. Visher, The Multi-site Evaluation of SVORI: Summary and Synthesis, RTI
International, December 2009, https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/230421.pdf.
39
The evaluation included a pre-release interview (conducted approximately 30 day before being released) with both
SVORI and non-SVORI participants. Follow-up interviews were conducted 3, 9, and 15 months after release. In
addition, oral swab drug tests were conducted during the 3 and 15 month interviews. Recidivism data was collected
from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC) and state correctional and
juvenile justice agencies. Ibid., p. ES-7.

Congressional Research Service

17

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

The Prisoner Reentry Initiative (PRI) was the successor to the SVORI program. According to
OJP, the PRI provided funding for model offender reentry programs that focused on providing
services and assistance during the three phases of offender reentry: at detention facilities, just
prior to and after the offender’s release, and during an ex-offender’s long-term transition to the
community. Congress discontinued funding the PRI after FY2008.
From FY2001 to FY2003, Congress appropriated funding for the DOJ portion of the SVORI
under the Community Oriented Policing Services account in the annual Commerce, Justice,
Science, and Related Agencies appropriations act. Appropriations were provided during these
fiscal years even though they were not authorized. As a part of the 21st Century Department of
Justice Reauthorization Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-273), Congress authorized appropriations for an
adult and juvenile offender reentry demonstration program. The act originally authorized
appropriations of $15.0 million for FY2003, $15.5 million for FY2004, and $16.0 million for
FY2005. For FY2004 to FY2008, Congress appropriated funding for the SVORI and the PRI
pursuant to the authorization for the adult and juvenile offender reentry demonstration program.
The Second Chance Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-199)40 reauthorized and modified the scope of the adult
and juvenile offender reentry demonstration program. The act replaced the previous four purpose
areas eligible for funding with new purpose areas spanning every phase of the offender reentry
process. Applicants for these grants are subject to a number of requirements, including submitting
a reentry strategic plan with their application, describing the long-term strategy, and providing a
detailed implementation schedule, among other things. The act requires that states and localities
match 50% of the federal funds provided; up to half of this state match (or 25% of the overall
total funding) can be composed of in-kind contributions. The act also created some new
demonstration grant programs, including
•

grants for state and local reentry courts;

•

grants for drug treatment diversion programs;

•

grants to expand substance-abuse programs for prisoners and ex-offenders; and

•

grants to expand the use of career training programs and mentoring programs.

Since FY2009, funding DOJ for reentry programs has been appropriated pursuant to the grant
programs authorized by the Second Chance Act.

Offender Reentry Programs at Other Federal Agencies
As previously mentioned, many federal departments provide funding through a wide array of
programs and block grants, which can be used by states for offender reentry. The following list is
not meant to be an exhaustive one, but it does capture many programs run by other departments
that can be used to support state offender reentry initiatives.

40

A more detailed description of the Second Chance Act can be found in the Appendix A.

Congressional Research Service

18

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

The Department of Labor (DOL)
The Workforce Investment Act41 (WIA) of 1998 (P.L. 105-220) authorized a nationwide system
of workforce development programs, America’s Workforce Network, that provides information
and services to connect youths and adults with employers.42 These programs, which can be used
by ex-offenders, provide services such as skills-training and job-placement. DOL also instituted a
Young Offender Reentry Demonstration Grant Program, which provides funds to communities for
offender reentry programs for offenders aged 14 to 21 who are already in the criminal justice
system or are considered high-risk. This program focuses on job-training, education, substanceabuse treatment, mental health care, housing assistance, and family support services.
In addition, DOL maintains two programs that provide incentives for companies to hire exoffenders. The Work Opportunity Tax Credits program43 provides up to $2,400 in tax credits to
companies for every former offender they hire,44 and the Federal Bonding Program allows
companies who cannot obtain bonding or insurance from their own providers to bond exoffenders for up to $25,000 for up to six months.45

The Department of Education (DOE)
The DOE offers programs that can be used by states to help fund or provide technical support for
offender reentry programs that focus on education. The Office of Vocational and Adult Education,
through the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (Title II of the Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act), provides grants to states to support basic education for out-of-school adults.
States may allocate up to 20% of their grants to educational services for criminal offenders,
including post-release services with the goal of reducing recidivism. In addition, the Perkins State
Grant Program allows states to use up to 1% of their funds to serve offenders in institutions.46

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
HUD funds a variety of programs that help states and local governments to support housing
programs. The Community Development Block Grant Program aims to assist states in developing
viable urban communities. Funds are allocated by formula to the states, and communities and
grantees have significant discretion concerning how to allocate their federal funding—including
using some funds to provide housing for ex-offenders.47
41
U.S. Department of Labor, Employment & Training Administration, “Serious and Violent Offender Reentry
Initiative Appendices,” http://www.doleta.gov/grants/sga/reentry_app.cfm; hereinafter “Serious and Violent Offender
Reentry Initiative Appendices.”
42
For more information about the Workforce Investment Act, please refer to CRS Report RL33687, The Workforce
Investment Act (WIA): Program-by-Program Overview and Funding of Title I Training Programs, by David H.
Bradley.
43
For more information about the Work Opportunity Tax Credits Program, please refer to CRS Report R43729, The
Work Opportunity Tax Credit, by Benjamin Collins and Sarah A. Donovan.
44
U.S. Department of Labor, Employment & Training Administration, “Work Opportunity Tax Credit” available at
http://www.doleta.gov/business/Incentives/opptax/.
45
U.S. Department of Labor, Employment & Training Administration, “Federal Bonding Program,”
http://www.bonds4jobs.com/program-background.html.
46
“Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative Appendices”
47
Ibid.

Congressional Research Service

19

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
HHS provides funding for a multitude of programs that can be used to help offender reentry
programs through the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Agency48 (SAMHSA) and the
Office of Community Services. These programs include the Recovery Community Support
Program, which targets people and families recovering from drug abuse and addiction, and
several block grant programs. SAMHSA also funds a program that specifically targets offender
reentry known as the Young Offender Reentry Program (YORP). The YORP provides funding for
state, tribal, and local governments, as well as community based nonprofit organizations, to
expand substance abuse treatment and supervision programs for juvenile and young adult
offenders re-entering the community.49 Funds for DHHS programs may be used to provide
substance abuse or mental health services for offenders on parole or probation. However, DHHS
funds may not be used to provide services to incarcerated offenders.50

Coordination Between Federal Agencies
A number of entities bring together offender reentry professionals from state and local
governments, nonprofit organizations, and academic institutions, including the Reentry Policy
Council founded by the Council of State Governments and the Reentry Roundtable hosted by the
Urban Institute. Both of these organizations attempt to bolster information sharing about best
practices and funding opportunities and coordination between the various state and local agencies
and stake-holders within the offender reentry field.
The DOJ has started an interagency Reentry Council to coordinate federal reentry efforts and
advance effective reentry policies. The purpose of the council is “to bring together numerous
federal agencies to make communities safer, assist those returning from prison and jail in
becoming productive, tax-paying citizens, and save taxpayer dollars by lowering the direct and
collateral costs of incarceration.”51 The council includes representatives from the following
agencies and offices:
•

Department of Justice,

•

Department of the Interior,

•

Department of Agriculture,

•

Department of Labor,

•

Department of Health and Human Services,

•

Department of Housing and Urban Development,

•

Department of Education,

48
For more information about SAMHSA, see CRS Report R41477, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration (SAMHSA): Agency Overview and Reauthorization Issues, by C. Stephen Redhead.
49
Testimony of Senior Policy Advisor to the Administrator Cheri Nolan, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, before the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee
on Corrections and Rehabilitation, Thursday, September 21, 2006.
50
“Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative Appendices.”
51
National Reentry Resource Center, Federal Interagency Reentry Council, http://csgjusticecenter.org/nrrc/projects/
firc/.

Congressional Research Service

20

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

•

Department of Veterans Affairs,

•

Office of National Drug Control Policy,

•

Social Security Administration,

•

Domestic Policy Council,

•

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,

•

White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships,

•

Office of Personnel Management,

•

Office of Management and Budget,

•

Internal Revenue Service,

•

Federal Trade Commission,

•

Interagency Council on Homelessness, and

•

Small Business Administration.

Conclusion
Over the past two and a half decades, the prison population and the number of ex-offenders being
released into the community have been increasing. The increasing number of ex-offenders
entering the community has put pressure on public policy makers to provide treatments and
services that will smooth the reintegration process while reducing recidivism. When deciding
what programs to fund, policy makers often focus on reducing recidivism. The focus on reducing
recidivism, however, is complicated by the fact that there are different definitions of recidivism.
For example, the most recent major national-level study showed that within five years of their
release three-quarters of ex-offenders came into contact with the legal system and about half were
back in prison for either a new conviction or a violation of the terms of their release. However,
only a quarter of the ex-offenders ended up in prison for having committed new crimes. Whether
technical violations should be considered a measure of recidivism or whether recidivism should
be confined to the commission of new crimes has engendered much debate within the criminal
justice field.
While the emphasis on reducing recidivism is important, programs can also be evaluated based on
other outcome measures such as their ability to connect ex-offenders with jobs, services, and
institutions in their communities. The best available research has shown that there are a number
of services that can help ex-offenders reconnect with their communities and lower recidivism,
including programs focusing on providing vocational training, substance abuse prevention,
mental health services, and housing. The reportedly most successful programs focus on high-risk
offenders, are intensive in nature, begin during institutional placement, and take place mostly in
the community. However, a relative lack of scientifically rigorous research has made it difficult to
draw definitive conclusions about which programs are most effective.
As Congress considers this issue, a number of policy issues may be assessed, including whether
the current federal grant programs are adequate or whether new programs should be created,
whether there is a need for more regular national-level recidivism data (there were almost 20
years between the BJS’s two reports on recidivism), whether enough coordination of the many

Congressional Research Service

21

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

programs that may be used to help ex-offenders is occurring within the federal government,
whether more evaluations of offender reentry programs are needed, and whether funding will be
appropriated for the programs and activities that were authorized by the Second Chance Act.

Congressional Research Service

22

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

Appendix A. Section-by-Section Summary of the
Second Chance Act
The Second Chance Act, P.L. 110-199, was passed by the House on November 13, 2007, and by
the Senate on March 11, 2008. The act was signed into law on April 9, 2008. Following is a
section-by-section summary of the act’s provisions.

Amendments to Current Offender Reentry Grant Program (§101)
The Second Chance Act reauthorized and expanded the adult and juvenile offender state and local
offender reentry demonstration projects codified at 42 U.S.C. §3797w. The act amended the prior
authorization for the program so than grant funds can be used within seven broad purpose areas:
•

educational, literacy, vocational, and job placement services;

•

substance abuse treatment and services, including programs that start in
placement and continue through the community;

•

programs that provide comprehensive supervision and offer services in the
community, including programs that provide housing assistance and mental and
physical health services;

•

programs that focus on family integration during and after placement for both
offenders and their families;

•

mentoring programs that start in placement and continue into the community;

•

programs that provide victim-appropriate services, including those that promote
the timely payment of restitution by offenders and those that offer services (such
as security or counseling) to victims when offenders are released; and

•

programs that protect communities from dangerous offenders, including
developing and implementing the use of risk assessment tools to determine when
offenders should be released from prison.

Applicants for these grants are subjected to a number of requirements, including submitting a
reentry strategic plan with their application, describing the long-term strategy, providing a
detailed implementation schedule, identifying the local government’s role in the plan, and
describing the “evidence based methodology and outcome measures” that are used to evaluate the
programs and “provide valid measures” of the program’s impact.
The act allows the Attorney General (AG) to make grants for these programs if the applications
received meet the following conditions:
•

they are explicitly supported by the chief executive of the unit of government
applying for the funding;

•

they extensively discuss the role that the various law enforcement entities
involved in the reentry process will have in the program;

Congressional Research Service

23

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

•

they provide extensive evidence of collaboration among the state and local
health, housing, child welfare, education, substance abuse, victims services,
employment, and law enforcement agencies;

•

they provide a plan for analyzing any statutory, regulatory, or other hurdles that
may exist to reintegrating offenders into the community; and

•

they include a reentry taskforce as described below to carry out the activities
funded under the grant.

The act requires applicants to develop a comprehensive strategic reentry plan that contains
measurable five-year performance outcomes, with the goal of reducing recidivism by 50% over
this period. As a condition of funding, applicants are also required to create offender reentry
taskforces that integrate the prime offender reentry stake-holders in their communities in order to
pool resources, facilitate data-collection, and reduce recidivism. Grantees are also required to
submit annual reports to DOJ that identify the specific progress made toward achieving their
strategic performance outcomes, and may be eligible for future grants if they demonstrate
adequate progress towards reducing recidivism by 10% over a two-year period.
In awarding grants under this program, the AG is directed to prioritize applications that
•

focus on geographic areas with a disproportionate population of ex-offenders;

•

include input from nonprofit organizations, consultation with victims and exoffenders, and coordinate with families;

•

demonstrate effective case management in order to provide comprehensive and
continuous services during reentry;

•

review the adjudications process for parole violations in the applicant’s criminal
justice system;

•

provide for an independent evaluation of the program, including, to the extent
practicable, the use of random assignment; and

•

target high risk offenders through the use of validated assessment tools.

Additionally, the act established a National Adult and Juvenile Offender Reentry Resource Center
by authorizing the AG to make a grant available to an eligible organization. The selected
organization is directed to provide education, training, and technical assistance to states and other
governments in order to collect and disseminate data and best practices in offender reentry,
including the use of evaluation tools and other measures to assess and document performance. Up
to 4% of the authorized level of funding can be used to establish and run this center.
The act authorized $55 million in both FY2009 and FY2010 for these programs and limits
funding for technical assistance and training to between 2% and 3% of the overall total
appropriated. The total federal share of funding for these grants is limited to 50%; however, up to
50% of the state and local matching funds (i.e., 25% of the overall grant) can be fulfilled through
in-kind contributions of goods or services.

Congressional Research Service

24

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

Improvement of the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment for
State Offenders Program (§102)
This provision requires states receiving grants under the residential substance abuse treatment
program (42 U.S.C. 3796ff) to ensure that individuals participating in these programs receive
aftercare services, including a full continuum of support services. The act defines residential
substance abuse treatment programs as a course of comprehensive individual and group substance
abuse services lasting at least six months in residential treatment facilities that are set apart from
the general population of a prison or jail. The act also requires the AG to study the use and
effectiveness of the funds used to provide the required aftercare services.

Definition of Violent Offender for Drug Court Program (§103)
The act modified the government’s current drug court grant program, restricting the current
definition of “violent offender” to individuals charged with or convicted for certain offenses that
are punishable by a sentence of longer than one year (prior there was no minimum sentence
length).52 The act requires all grantees under this program to adhere to this definition of “violent
offender” within three years of the enactment of the act (i.e., April 9, 2011).

New Offender Reentry Grant Programs
Subtitle B created a number of new targeted grant programs within the Department of Justice
(DOJ) relating to the reintegration of offenders into the community.

State and Local Reentry Courts (§111)
This provision created a new grant program within DOJ to fund reentry courts. Subject to the
availability of appropriations, grants up to $500,000 are made available for state and local adult
and juvenile court systems in order to establish and maintain reentry courts. These courts are
tasked with monitoring juvenile and adult offenders reentering into the community and providing
them with a coordinated and comprehensive array of services, including housing assistance,
education, job training, health services, and substance abuse treatment. In order to be eligible for
funding, applicants have to demonstrate the need for their program; create a long-term strategy
and detailed implementation plan; identify the government and community entities that would be
coordinated by the project; and describe the methodology and outcome measures that would be
used to evaluate the program. Additionally, applicants are required to submit annual reports to
DOJ including a summary of the activities carried out with the grant and an assessment of
whether these activities are meeting the needs identified in the grant application. The act
authorized $10 million for this program in FY2009 and FY2010. The total federal share of
funding for these grants is limited to 50%; however, up to 50% of the state and local matching

52
In order to be considered a “violent offender,” an individual has to have committed this crime while in possession of
a firearm or dangerous weapon, the crime has to have resulted in the death or serious bodily injury of a person, force
had to have been used against someone’s person, or the offender had 1 or more prior convictions for a felony crime of
violence involving the use or attempted use of force against a person with the intent to cause death or serious bodily
harm. See 42 U.S.C. §3797 u-2(a)(1).

Congressional Research Service

25

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

funds (i.e., 25% of the overall grant) could be fulfilled through in-kind contributions of goods or
services.

Drug Treatment Alternative to Prison Programs (§112)
This provision created a new grant program for state and local prosecutors to fund the
development, implementation, and expansion of drug treatment programs that are alternatives to
imprisonment. The programs require eligible offenders, after having received the consent of the
prosecutor, to participate in comprehensive drug treatment programs in lieu of imprisonment.
Criminal charges would be dismissed upon completion of the program. Offenders failing to
successfully complete their treatment programs would serve their original sentence. In order to be
eligible for these programs, the offender in question could not have had any prior felony use of
force convictions or have been charged with or convicted of an offense involving a firearm, a
dangerous weapon, or the use of force against another individual. The act authorized $10 million
for this program in FY2009 and FY2010. The total federal share of funding for these grants is
limited to 50%; however, up to 50% of the state and local matching funds (i.e., 25% of the overall
grant) could be fulfilled through in-kind contributions of goods or services.

Family Substance Abuse Treatment Alternatives to
Incarceration Grants (§113)
This provision created a new grant program to develop, implement, and expand the use of familybased substance abuse treatment programs as alternatives to incarceration for non-violent parent
drug offenders. Among other things, the treatment is required to be clinically appropriate,
comprehensive, and long-term and would be provided in a residential setting rather than an
outpatient or a hospital setting. The program is required to include the implementation of
graduated sanctions applied on the basis of the offender’s accountability throughout the course of
the program and the development of reentry plans for offenders. Offenders failing to complete the
program are required to complete the sentence for the underlying crime involved. Grantees are
required to submit annual reports to DOJ detailing the effectiveness of their programs using
evidence-based data. Prison-based programs are required to locate their programs in an area
separate from the general population, to create and support treatment plans for incarcerated
parents, and to ensure continuity of care if participating offenders are transferred to a different
facility. The act authorized $10 million in FY2009 and in FY2010 for these grants; not less than
5% of this total is to be allocated to Indian tribes.

Grants to Evaluate and Improve Educational Methods at Prisons,
Jails, and Juvenile Facilities (§114)
This program authorizes the AG, subject to the availability of appropriations, to make grants to
evaluate, identify, and improve programs that focus on providing educational and vocational
programs for offenders by identifying and implementing best practices. Grantees are required to
submit reports within 90 days of the last day of the final fiscal year of a grant detailing the
progress that they have made. The act authorized appropriations of $5 million for this program for
FY2009 and FY2010.

Congressional Research Service

26

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

Technology Careers Training Demonstration Grants (§115)
The act authorizes the AG to make grants to states, units of local governments, territories, and
Indian Tribes to provide technology career training for prisoners. Grants may be awarded for
programs that establish technology careers training programs for offenders during the three-year
period prior to their release. Access to the Internet during the program is restricted to ensure
public safety. Grantees must submit a report to DOJ describing and assessing the program each
fiscal year. The act authorized $10 million for this program in FY2009 and FY2010.

New Drug-Treatment and Mentoring Grant Programs
Title II of P.L. 110-199 authorized a series of new grant programs for drug-treatment and
mentoring purposes. Subtitle A (§201) focuses on drug treatment programs, Subtitles B and C
(§§211-214) focus on training and mentoring programs, and Subtitle C (§231) created a federal
offender reentry program at the Bureau of Prisons.

Offender Reentry Substance Abuse and Criminal Justice
Collaboration Program (§201)
The act authorized the AG to make grants to states, units of local governments, territories, and
Indian tribes in order to improve drug treatment programs in prisons and reduce the use of alcohol
and other drugs by long-term abusers under correctional supervision. Grants may be used to
continue or improve existing drug treatment programs, develop and implement programs for
long-term substance abusers, provide addiction recovery support services, and establish
pharmacological drug treatment services as part of any drug treatment program offered to
prisoners.53 Grant applicants are required to identify the entities that will be involved in providing
the treatment, certify that this treatment has been developed in consultation with the Single State
Authority for Substance Abuse,54 certify that the treatment will be clinically appropriate and will
provide comprehensive treatment, and describe how evidence-based strategies have been
incorporated into the program, including the collection and analysis of data. The AG was required
to submit a report to Congress detailing best practices relating to substance abuse treatment in
prison and comprehensive treatment of long-term substance abusers by September 30, 2009.
Another report on the drug treatment programs funded through this grant program was required
by September 30, 2010. The act authorized appropriations of $15 million for this program for
both FY2009 and FY2010.

Mentoring Grants to Nonprofit Organizations (§211)
This provision created a new grant program to provide mentoring and other transitional services
for offenders being released into the community. Funding can be used for mentoring programs
both in placement and during reentry, programs providing transition services during reentry, and
53
Pharmacological drug treatment involves using drugs and medications in the treatment of substance abuse. See
Clayton Mosher, Scott Akins, and Chad Smith, “Pharmacological Drug Treatment” Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Royal York, Toronto. 2008-04-21.
54
States would be required to identify an entity that would be the single State administrative authority responsible for
planning, developing, implementing, monitoring, regulating, and evaluating substance abuse services within the State.

Congressional Research Service

27

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

programs providing training for “offender and victims issues.” Priority is given to applicants
providing for the evaluation of their programs, using randomized control trials to the maximum
extent feasible. Applicants are required to identify and report on specific outcome performance
measures related to the overall goal of reducing recidivism. The act authorized $15 million in
FY2009 and in FY2010 for these grants.

Responsible Reintegration of Offenders (§212)
The act authorized the Secretary of Labor to make grants to nonprofit organizations to provide a
wide array of mentoring, job training and job placement services, and other comprehensive
transitional services. Grants may not be used to provide substance abuse treatment, mental health
treatment, or housing services; however, grants can be used to coordinate with other entities
providing these services. Applications for the program must identify the specific eligible area that
will be served and the need for support in this area and describe the services that will be provided,
the partnerships that have been established with the criminal justice system and housing
authorities, and how other sources of funding will be leveraged to provide support services. In
order to be eligible for funding, programs must be located in urbanized areas or clusters (as
determined by the Bureau of the Census) that have a large number of prisoners returning to the
community and high recidivism rates (however, no definitions for a large number of returning
prisoners or high recidivism rates are provided). To be eligible for the program, offenders must be
at least 18 years old, have no prior adult convictions or convictions for violent or sex-related
offenses, and have been released from prison no more than 180 days before they begin
participating in the grant program.55 The act authorized $20 million in appropriations for the
Secretary of Labor to carry out this section in both FY2009 and FY2010; up to 4% of the
appropriation may be used to provide technical assistance.

Bureau of Prisons Policies on Mentoring Contacts (§213)
This provision directed the Director of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to adopt and implement a
policy by July 9, 2009, to ensure that mentors working with incarcerated offenders are permitted
to continue providing their services to the offender after their release from prison. The Director
was required to submit a report to Congress concerning this policy’s implementation by
September 20, 2009.

Bureau of Prisons Policies on Chapel Library Material (§214)
The Director of the BOP was required to discontinue the Standardized Chapel Library project, or
any other project that compiles, lists, or restricts prisoner access to materials provided by chapel
libraries by May 9, 2008. Exceptions were made for materials that incite, promote, or suggest
violence and materials prohibited by law.

55

Grantees may exempt 10% of their clients from this 180-day requirement.

Congressional Research Service

28

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

Federal Prisoner Reentry Program (§231)
The act establishes a prisoner reentry program within the BOP. BOP was required to create a
federal prisoner reentry strategy that
•

assesses each prisoner’s skill level at the beginning of their prison term
(including academic, vocational, health, cognitive, interpersonal, daily living, and
other related skills);

•

creates a skills development plan for prisoners to be carried out during their term
of imprisonment;

•

determines program assignments for prisoners based on the needs identified by
the assessment;

•

gives priority to the reentry needs of high-risk populations, including sexoffenders, career criminals, and prisoners with mental health problems;

•

coordinates and collaborates with other criminal justice, community-based, and
faith-based organizations;

•

collects information about a prisoner’s family relationships and parental
responsibilities; and

•

provides incentives for prisoners to participate in skills development programs.

Incentives for prisoners to participate in skills development programs include allowing offenders
to spend the maximum amount of time in community confinement facilities. Additionally, BOP
was required to assist offenders in obtaining identification prior to their release.
The act modified current law to include a number of new duties for the Director of BOP. These
new duties include the establishment of prerelease planning procedures for all federal offenders
that help prisoners apply for federal and state benefits prior to their release, and the establishment
of reentry planning procedures to provide federal offenders with information in a number of
reentry-related areas. The BOP was required to establish and implement a system that will allow
it to quantitatively track progress in responding to the reentry needs of its inmates and to provide
an annual report to the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary concerning its progress.
An annual report is also required containing recidivism statistics for federal prisoners, including
information concerning the relative recidivism rates of offenders participating in major inmate
programs. After the initial report establishes a baseline recidivism rate for BOP ex-offenders, the
act established 5- and 10-year goals of 2% and 5% reductions in this rate, respectively.
The BOP was further required to ensure that the United States Probation and Pretrial Services
System has medical information for inmates scheduled for release in order to create supervision
plans that address the medical and mental health care needs of ex-offenders, and to ensure that
each prisoner in community confinement has access to medical and mental health care.
In addition to the offender reentry program established above, the act also established two new
programs within the BOP:
•

A pilot program within the BOP to determine the effectiveness of allowing
certain elderly, non-violent offenders to serve the remainder of their sentences on
home detention. In order to be eligible for this program, offenders have to be 65

Congressional Research Service

29

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

years old or older and have never been convicted of a violent or sex-related crime
or given a life-sentence, among other things.
•

A program to provide satellite tracking of certain high-risk individuals after their
release from prison, in conjunction with the use of graduated sanctions, the
provision of reentry related services, and the involvement the offender’s family, a
victim advocate, and the victim. The act authorized $5 million for this purpose
for FY2009 and in FY2010.

Offender Reentry Research (§241)
The act allowed, but did not direct, the National Institute of Justice to conduct research into
offender reentry. This research may include a study identifying the number and characteristics of
children with incarcerated parents and their likelihood of engaging in criminal activity, a study
identifying mechanisms to compare recidivism rates between states, and a study on the
characteristics of individuals released from prison who do not recidivate.
The act also allowed, but did not direct, the Bureau of Justice Statistics to conduct research on
offender reentry. This research may include an analysis of the populations that present unique
reentry challenges, studies to determine the characteristics of individuals who return to prison
(including which individuals pose the highest risk to the community), annual reports on the
profile of the population leaving detention and entering the community, a national recidivism
study every three years, and a study of post incarceration supervision (e.g., parole) violations.

Grants to Study Post-Incarceration Supervision Violations (§242)
This provision created a new grant program to fund state studies aimed at improving datacollection on offenders who have their post-incarceration supervision revoked in order to better
identify which individuals pose the greatest risk to the community. In order to receive funding,
states have to certify that their program would collect “comprehensive and reliable data” and have
to provide these data to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Addressing the Needs of Children of Incarcerated Parents (§243)
This provision directed the AG to collect data and develop best practices concerning the
communication and coordination between state corrections and child welfare agencies, especially
as they relate to the safety and support of children of incarcerated parents.

Study of Effectiveness of Depot Naltrexone for Heroin Addiction
(§244)
The act authorized the AG, acting through the National Institute of Justice, to make grants to
public and private research entities to evaluate the effectiveness of depot naltrexone for the
treatment of heroin addiction. In order to be eligible for funding, research entities must
demonstrate that they conduct research in a public or private institution of higher education, that
they plan to work with parole or probation officers for offenders under court supervision, and that
they will use randomized control trials to evaluate their programs. Grantees are required to submit
reports to DOJ describing and assessing the uses of their grant.

Congressional Research Service

30

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

Authorization of Appropriations for Research (§245)
The act authorized $10 million in both FY2009 and FY2010 to carry out the research programs
authorized by §§241-244.

Clarification of Authority to Place Prisoner in Community
Corrections (§251)
This provision required the Director of the BOP to ensure, to the extent practicable, that prisoners
within the federal correctional system spend up to a year at the end of their sentence focusing on
their reentry into the community. As part of this practice, the BOP is authorized to transfer
offenders to community correctional facilities or to home confinement (for the shorter of the last
10% or six months of their sentence). The provision also gives BOP the discretion to disregard a
court’s order that an offender serve part of his sentence in a community correctional facility.

Residential Drug Abuse Program in Federal Prisons (§252)
The act replaced the current definition of a residential drug abuse program with language defining
such a program as a course of individual and group activities and treatment lasting at least six
months in residential treatment facilities that are set apart from the general prison population. The
act also stipulated that this treatment can include pharmacotherapies that extend beyond the sixmonth period.

Contracting for Services for Post-Conviction Supervision of
Offenders (§253)
This provision gives the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts the
authority to enter into contracts with public and private agencies to monitor and provide a wide
array of services to offenders in the community to promote their reintegration.

Extension of National Prison Rape Elimination Commission (§261)
The act extended the authorization for the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission56 from
three years to five years.

56

42 U.S.C. §15606(d)(3)(A).

Congressional Research Service

31

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

Appendix B. Appropriations for DOJ Reentry
Grant Programs
Table B-1. Authorized and Appropriated Funding for the DOJ Reentry Program,
FY2001-FY2008
Appropriations and authorizations in millions of dollars
Fiscal Year

Authorized

Appropriated

2001

N.A.

$29.9

2002

N.A.

14.9

2003

15.0

14.8

2004

15.5

4.9

2005

16.0

9.9

2006

N.A.

4.9

2007

N.A.

14.9

2008

N.A.

11.8

Source: Data provided by the U.S. Department of Justice, Community Oriented Policing Services Office.
Notes: “N.A.” means “not authorized.” Starting with FY2009, Congress started appropriating funding for DOJ’s
reentry program pursuant to the Second Chance Act (see Table B-2). Appropriated amount includes all
rescissions of current year budget authority.

Table B-2. Authorized and Appropriated Funding for the Second Chance Act Grant
Programs Administered by the Department of Justice, FY2009-FY2015
Appropriations and authorizations in millions of dollars
Fiscal Year

Authorized

Appropriated

2009

$160.0

$25.0a

2010

160.0

100.0b

2011

N.A.

82.8c

2012

N.A.

63.0d

2013

N.A.

63.9e

2014

N.A.

67.8f

2015

N.A.

68.0g

Source: FY2009 appropriations were taken from P.L. 111-8; FY2010 appropriations were taken from P.L. 111117; FY2011 appropriations were based on a CRS analysis of the text of P.L. 112-10; FY2012 appropriation was
taken from P.L. 112-55; FY2013 appropriation was provided by the Department of Justice; FY2014 appropriation
was taken from the joint explanatory statement to accompany P.L. 113-76, printed in the January 15, 2014,
Congressional Record (pp. H507-H532); FY2015 appropriation was taken from the joint explanatory statement to
accompany P.L. 113-235, printed in the December 12, 2014, Congressional Record (pp. H9342-H9363).
Notes: “N.A.” means “not authorized.” Appropriated amount includes all rescissions of current year budget
authority.
a.

The FY2009 appropriation included $15 million for the Adult and Juvenile Offender Reentry Demonstration
program and $10 million for mentoring grants to nonprofit organizations.

Congressional Research Service

32

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

b.

The FY2010 appropriation included $37 million for the Adult and Juvenile Offender Reentry Demonstration
program; $10 million for state and local reentry courts; $7.5 million for Family Substance Abuse Treatment
Alternative to Incarceration grants; $2.5 million for grants to evaluate and improve education methods at
prisons, jails, and juvenile facilities; $5 million for Technology Careers Training Demonstration grants; $13
million for the Offender Reentry Substance Abuse and Criminal Justice Collaboration program; $15 million
for Mentoring Grants to Nonprofit Organizations; and $10 million for grants for offender reentry research.

c.

The FY2011 appropriation included $30.6 million for the Adult and Juvenile Offender Reentry
Demonstration program; $8.3 million for state and local reentry courts; $6.2 million for Family Substance
Abuse Treatment Alternative to Incarceration grants; $2.1 million for grants to evaluate and improve
education methods at prisons, jails, and juvenile facilities; $4.1 million for Technology Careers Training
Demonstration grants; $10.8 million for the Offender Reentry Substance Abuse and Criminal Justice
Collaboration program; $12.4 million for Mentoring Grants to Nonprofit Organizations; and $8.3 million for
grants for offender reentry research.

d.

For FY2012, $63 million was provided for DOJ-administered grant programs authorized under the Second
Chance Act, of which $4 million was set aside for a smart probation program. Congress allowed the
Administration to decide how the remaining $59 million would be allocated between the programs
authorized under the act.

e.

For FY2013, $63.9 million was provided for DOJ-administered grant programs authorized under the Second
Chance Act, of which $4.6 million was set aside for a smart probation program. Congress allowed the
Administration to decide how the remaining $63.8 million would be allocated between the programs
authorized under the act. The FY2013 enacted amount also includes the amount sequestered per the
Budget Control Act of 2011(P.L. 112-25).

f.

For FY2014, $67.8 million was provided for DOJ-administered grant programs authorized under the Second
Chance Act, of which $6 million was set aside for a smart probation program, $2 million was set aside for a
Children of Incarcerated Parents Demonstration Grant program, and $7.5 million was set aside for a “Pay
for Success” program. Congress allowed the Administration to decide how the remaining $52.3 million
would be allocated between the programs authorized under the act.

g.

For FY2015, $68.0 million was provided for DOJ-administered grant programs authorized under the Second
Chance Act, of which $6 million was set aside for a smart probation program, $5 million was set aside for a
Children of Incarcerated Parents Demonstration Grant program, and $7.5 million was set aside for a “Pay
for Success” program. Congress allowed the Administration to decide how the remaining $49.5 million
would be allocated between the programs authorized under the act.

Author Contact Information
Nathan James
Analyst in Crime Policy
njames@crs.loc.gov, 7-0264

Congressional Research Service

33