State of Recidivism
The Revolving Door
of America’s Prisons

PEW CENTER ON THE STATES

Public Safety Performance Project

April 2011

April 2011

The Pew Center on the States is a division of The Pew Charitable Trusts that identifies and
advances effective solutions to critical issues facing states. Pew is a nonprofit organization
that applies a rigorous, analytical approach to improve public policy, inform the public
and stimulate civic life.
PEW CENTER ON THE STATES

Susan K. Urahn, managing director
Public Safety Performance Project
Adam Gelb, director
Jennifer Laudano, senior officer
Alexis Schuler, senior officer
Courtney Dozier, officer
Jake Horowitz, project manager
Richard Jerome, project manager
Ryan King, project manager

Brian Elderbroom, senior associate
Samantha Harvell, senior associate
Jason Newman, senior associate
Robin Olsen, senior associate
Rolanda Rascoe, senior associate
Corinne Mills, associate
Mary Tanner Noel, administrative assistant
Gita Ram, administrative assistant

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank the survey respondents from departments of corrections in all responding states,
and our survey and data partners at the Association of State Correctional Administrators:
George Camp and Camille Camp, co-executive directors; Patricia Hardyman, senior
associate, Camelia Graham, statistician and Fred Levesque, consultant. We also greatly
appreciate the contributions of Jenifer Warren, John Prevost of the Georgia State Board of
Pardons and Paroles, James F. Austin of the JFA Institute, Michael Connelly of the Oklahoma
Department of Corrections, Tony Fabelo of the Council of State Governments Justice Center
and Howard Snyder of the Bureau of Justice Statistics. We also thank Pew colleagues Nancy
Augustine, Michael Caudell-Feagan, Lynette Clemetson, Kil Huh, Jennifer Peltak, Evan
Potler, Joan Riggs, Aidan Russell, Carla Uriona, Gaye Williams and Denise Wilson.
Suggested Citation: Pew Center on the States, State of Recidivism: The Revolving Door of America’s Prisons
(Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts, April 2011).

For additional information, visit www.pewcenteronthestates.org.

This report is intended for educational and informational purposes. References to specific policy makers
or companies have been included solely to advance these purposes and do not constitute an endorsement,
sponsorship or recommendation by The Pew Charitable Trusts.
©2011 The Pew Charitable Trusts. All Rights Reserved.
901 E Street NW, 10th Floor				
Washington, DC 20004					

2005 Market Street, Suite 1700
Philadelphia, PA 19103

Contents
Executive Summary.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 1
Introduction.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 5
Recidivism as a Performance Measure.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 6
Overview of the Study .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 7
Sidebar: What Is the Recidivism Rate?. .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 7

A Closer Look at Recidivism Rates .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 9
New Figures Show Steady National Recidivism Rate. .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 9
State Rates Vary Widely .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 12
Sidebar: Comparing State Rates: A Note of Caution .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 12
How Have Recidivism Rates Changed? .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 13

Unpacking the Numbers .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 17
How Does Sentencing Policy Impact Recidivism Rates? .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 17
How Does Community Corrections Policy Impact Recidivism Rates? .  . 17
Attacking Recidivism: Examples from Three States.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 19

Improving Public Safety and Cutting Correctional Costs.  .  .  .  .  . 25
Reducing Recidivism: Strategies for Success.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 26
Sidebar: Resources for Developing Effective Reentry
and Supervision Strategies. .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 27
A Promising Start .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 31

(continued)

State of Recidivism: The Revolving Door of America’s Prisons

iii

Contents

Exhibits
State Prison Releases and Recidivism Rates. .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 10
The Cycle of Prison Release.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 14
The State of Recidivism .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 15
Protecting Public Safety and Cutting Costs.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 26
States Providing Data on First Releases
versus Data for All Releases.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 34
How States Classify the Reasons Offenders
Were Returned to Prison .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 35

Appendix: Methodology .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 33
Differences Between the Pew/ASCA Survey
and BJS Research.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 34
Jurisdictional Notes .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 36
Endnotes.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 39

Launched in 2006, the Public Safety Performance Project seeks to help
states advance fiscally sound, data-driven policies and practices in
sentencing and corrections that protect public safety, hold offenders
accountable and control corrections costs.

iv

Pew Center on the States

Executive Summary
The dramatic growth of America’s prison
population during the past three decades
is by now a familiar story. In 2008, the
Pew Center on the States reported that
incarceration levels had risen to a point
where one in 100 American adults was
behind bars. A second Pew study the
following year added another disturbing
dimension to the picture, revealing that one
in 31 adults in the United States was either
incarcerated or on probation or parole.
The costs associated with this growth also
have been well documented. Total state
spending on corrections is now about
$52 billion, the bulk of which is spent
on prisons. State spending on corrections
quadrupled during the past two decades,
making it the second fastest growing area
of state budgets, trailing only Medicaid.
While America’s imprisonment boom
and its fiscal impacts have been widely
debated, the public safety payoff from
our expenditures on incarceration has
undergone far less scrutiny. Now, however,
as the nation’s slumping economy
continues to force states to do more with
less, policy makers are asking tougher
questions about corrections outcomes.

One key element of that analysis is
measuring recidivism, or the rate at
which offenders return to prison. Prisons,
of course, are not solely responsible for
recidivism results. Parole and probation
agencies, along with social service
providers and community organizations,
play a critical role.
Although preventing offenders from
committing more crimes once released is
only one goal of the overall correctional
system, it is a crucial one, both in terms
of preventing future victimization and
ensuring that taxpayer dollars are spent
effectively. This report seeks to elevate
the public discussion about recidivism,
prompting policy makers and the public
to dig more deeply into the factors that
impact rates of return to prison, and into
effective strategies for reducing them.

A Fresh Look at the Numbers
For years the most widely accepted sources
of national recidivism statistics have
been two studies produced by the U.S.
Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice
Statistics (BJS). The most recent of those
reports, which tracked offenders released

State of Recidivism: The Revolving Door of America’s Prisons

1

Executive Summary

from state prison in 1994, concluded that
a little more than half of released offenders
(51.8 percent) were back in prison within
three years, either for committing a
new crime or for violating rules of their
supervision. Published in 2002, the BJS
study followed a sample of offenders from
15 states, and did not provide any statelevel recidivism data.

“

According to the survey results, 45.4
percent of people released from prison
in 1999 and 43.3 percent of those sent
Recognizing the importance of recidivism home in 2004 were reincarcerated within
to policy makers seeking better results
three years, either for committing a
from their correctional systems, Pew, in
new crime or for violating conditions
collaboration with the Association of State governing their release. While differences
Correctional Administrators (ASCA),
in survey methods complicate direct
undertook a comprehensive survey aimed comparisons of national recidivism rates
at producing the first state-by-state look
over time, a comparison of the states
at recidivism rates. The Pew/ASCA survey included in both the Pew/ASCA and BJS
asked states to report three-year returnstudies reveals that recidivism rates have
to-prison rates for all inmates released
been largely stable. When excluding
California, whose size skews the national
picture, recidivism rates between 1994
and 2007 have consistently remained
Without education, job skills, and
around 40 percent.
other basic services, offenders are

likely to repeat the same steps that
brought them to jail in the first place …
This is a problem that needs to be
addressed head-on. We cannot say we are
doing everything we can to keep our
communities and our families safe if we
are not addressing the high rate at which
offenders are becoming repeat criminals.”
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R)
March 18, 2011

2

from their prison systems in 1999 and
2004.This survey differs from the prior
BJS study in many important ways,
the most significant of which is that it
includes recidivism data from more than
twice as many states.

Pew Center on the States

The new figures suggest that despite
the massive increase in corrections
spending, in many states there has been
little improvement in the performance
of corrections systems. If more than four
out of 10 adult American offenders still
return to prison within three years of their
release, the system designed to deter them
from continued criminal behavior clearly
is falling short. That is an unhappy reality,
not just for offenders, but for the safety of
American communities.

Executive Summary

Variation among States
While Pew’s new national numbers
provide a useful and representative
snapshot of recidivism, this report
goes further, breaking out the figures
state by state and showing change in
reoffending trends over time. The result
is a patchwork of recidivism rates that
provokes myriad questions about the
dramatic variations seen across the
country.
For example, why do Wyoming and
Oregon have the lowest overall recidivism
rates for offenders released in 2004, and
why do Minnesota and California have
the highest? Why does North Carolina
return relatively few ex-offenders to prison
for technical violations of their parole,
but reincarcerate a comparatively large
proportion for new crimes? What drove
the recidivism rate down by 22.1 percent
in Kansas between 1999 and 2004, and
what drove it up 34.9 percent in South
Dakota during the same time period?
The causes of these variations are not
always what they seem, and we explore
some individual state stories, along with

some of the variables that influence
recidivism patterns. We also examine
policies and practices with demonstrated
success in helping states reduce their
recidivism rates. These strategies,
anchored in research and proven over
time, include the use of sophisticated risk
assessments, meticulous reentry planning
and post-release supervision carefully
tailored to each offender’s circumstances.
By employing such measures and other
evidence-based interventions, states can
improve the odds that released offenders
will not reappear at the prison gate. That
outcome benefits everyone, saving public
funds and keeping communities safe.

“

By reducing the rate of offenders
who return to prison, we keep our

communities safer, our families more
intact, and we’re able to begin reinvesting
incarceration costs to other critical
services.”
Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear (D)
January 4, 2011

State of Recidivism: The Revolving Door of America’s Prisons

3

Introduction
Since the early 1970s, prisons have been
the weapon of choice in America’s fight
against crime. Between 1973 and 2009,
the nation’s prison population grew by
705 percent, resulting in more than one
in 100 adults behind bars.1 This growth
came at substantial cost, with annual
state and federal spending on corrections
exploding by 305 percent during the past
two decades, to about $52 billion.2 During
that same period, corrections spending
doubled as a share of state funding. It
now accounts for one of every 14 general
fund dollars,3 and one in every eight state
employees works for a corrections agency.4
This high price would be more than
defensible had it yielded proportionate
improvements in public safety. In fact,
the crime rate has been falling since the
early 1990s, and is now at its lowest
level since 1968.5 Prison expansion
certainly contributed to this trend. The
most sophisticated research gives prison
growth credit for one-quarter to one-third
of the crime drop during the 1990s.6
Other factors likely included advances
in law enforcement practices, changes
in drug markets and an aging American
population, to name a few.

However, a deeper look at the data reveals
a far more complicated picture with
significant implications for public policy:
n

During the past 10 years, all 19
states that cut their imprisonment
rates also experienced a decline in
their crime rates.7

n

Florida and New York began the
twenty-first century with nearly
the same size prison population
(about 70,000 inmates). During
the ensuing decade, Florida added
30,000 inmates and now has more
than 100,000 persons behind bars.
Meanwhile, New York’s prison
population fell below 60,000. Yet
the crime rate dropped in both states
by about the same rate. In fact,
New York’s crime drop was slightly
larger (29.2 percent) compared with
Florida’s (28.2 percent).

n

Researchers calculate that we are past
the point of diminishing returns,
where each additional prison cell
provides less and less public safety
benefit. For example, in 1980,
Washington State received more than
$9 in benefits for every dollar spent
locking up drug offenders; now that

State of Recidivism: The Revolving Door of America’s Prisons

5

Introduction

there are so many people behind
bars, the state receives just 37 cents
in benefits for each dollar spent.8
n

Finally, if prisons helped cut crime
by at most one-third, then other
factors and efforts must account
for the remaining two-thirds of the
reduction. And because prisons are
the most expensive option available,
there are more cost-effective policies
and programs. For example, it costs
an average of $78.95 per day to keep
an inmate locked up, more than 20
times the cost of a day on probation.9

Figures like these, along with massive state
budget shortfalls, have helped contribute

“

To increase public safety in this
austere budget environment, we

must support cost-effective efforts by
states that are grounded in the ‘best
practices’ and draw on the latest
innovations from public corrections and
the faith-based community … For many
years, reducing recidivism seemed nearly
impossible. Now, many states are starting
to turn a corner through commonsense
and cost-effective reforms.”
U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA, chair, Subcommittee
on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related
Agencies, Committee on Appropriations)
January 8, 2011

6

Pew Center on the States

to a growing national movement that puts
prison spending under greater scrutiny
than ever before. For most of the past 40
years, the most common question policy
makers asked about the budgets of state
departments of corrections was simply
“How many more prisons do we need?”
Today state and national leaders from
both parties are asking a much tougher
question: “How do we get taxpayers
a better public safety return on their
corrections dollars?”

Recidivism as a
Performance Measure
In their efforts to answer that question,
many states are taking a hard look at their
recidivism rate as a key indicator of the
return they receive from their correctional
investments. Prisons serve multiple
purposes, including exacting retribution
for breaking the law, separating offenders
from society so they cannot commit
more crimes, deterring the general
population from committing crimes and
discouraging incarcerated offenders from
committing new crimes once they are
released. The last goal—avoiding future
criminal conduct through deterrence
and rehabilitation—is measured by
the recidivism rate and has long been
considered the leading statistical indicator
of return on correctional investment.
To be sure, the performance of
corrections agencies should be judged
by whether the recidivism rate is

Introduction

rising or falling over time. All other
things being equal, a state where
corrections agencies are strategically
improving their release preparation
and supervision strategies will see its
recidivism rate drop.

Overview of the Study
At a time when states are mired in fiscal
crises and struggling with painful budget
choices, policy makers need updated
information about the public safety return
on corrections spending in their states.
Specifically, they need knowledge about
what is working—and what is not—to
slow down the revolving door of prisons.

Policy makers should exercise caution,
however, before merely accepting low
or high recidivism numbers as evidence
of successful or failing correctional
To help them along that path, Pew
programs. A low recidivism rate does not
undertook a first-of-its-kind project— a
always reflect the use of sound release
survey of every state’s department of
preparation and supervision strategies. By
contrast, they also may be the by-product
of a wide range of other factors, such
What Is the
as policies that send low-risk offenders
Recidivism Rate?
to prison instead of granting probation,
which is likely to result in a low rate of
Recidivism is the act of reengaging
reoffending but at a higher cost. Moreover,
in criminal offending despite
having been punished. The prison
beyond the justice system, recidivism
recidivism rate—the subject of this
rates can be influenced by larger social
report—is the proportion of persons
and economic forces. Therefore, any
released from prison who are
evaluation of recidivism data must include
rearrested, reconvicted or returned
an understanding of this broader context
to custody within a specific time
period. Typically, recidivism studies
and the larger policies and practices that
follow released offenders for three
drive the numbers.
For this reason, states in this report are
presented in alphabetical order, rather
than ranked by recidivism rate. Readers
are advised to focus on differences within
states over time, and to probe for reasons
why one state’s recidivism rate might be
higher than its neighbor’s rather than to
make judgments about the performance
of its corrections agencies based on this
single indicator.

years following their release from
prison or placement on probation.
Offenders are returned to prison for
one of two reasons:
1. For committing a new crime that
results in a new conviction
or

2. For a technical violation of
supervision, such as not reporting
to their parole or probation
officer or failing a drug test

State of Recidivism: The Revolving Door of America’s Prisons

7

Introduction

“

Prisons are often the forgotten
element of the criminal justice

system until things go badly. Catching the
guy and prosecuting him is really important
work, but if we don’t do anything with that
individual after we’ve got him, then shame
on us. If all that effort goes to waste and
we just open the doors five years later, and
it’s the same guy walking out the door and
the same criminal thinking, we’ve failed in
our mission.”
Minnesota Commissioner of Corrections Tom Roy
April 7, 2011

corrections—with the aim of creating
a single source of state-level recidivism
data.10 The survey, conducted with
assistance from the Association of State
Correctional Administrators (ASCA), asked
states to provide recidivism rates for the
36 months following an offender’s release
from prison.11 States also were asked to

8

Pew Center on the States

specify whether an individual was returned
to prison for a new criminal conviction
or for a technical violation of the terms of
his or her supervision. The survey sought
estimates of recidivism for two cohorts of
prisoners, those released in 1999 and for a
second group released in 2004.
Thirty-three states responded with data
for the 1999 release cohort, and 41 states
provided data for offenders released
in 2004, allowing for an analysis of
recidivism trends in almost three dozen
states that represent 87 and 91 percent of
all releases from state prison, respectively.12
This report provides the first opportunity
to examine intrastate rates over time.
These data provide crucial insight to policy
makers as they assess the performance
of their state’s correctional system. Those
states that did not participate either were
unable to respond to our survey because
they had not collected data on recidivism
for the requested period(s) or they did not
respond to numerous efforts to contact
state officials. The Appendix contains more
information on the research methodology.

A Closer Look at Recidivism Rates
New Figures Show Steady
National Recidivism Rate
The Pew/ASCA survey found the threeyear return-to-prison rate for inmates
released in 1999 to be 45.4 percent, and
43.3 percent for those released in 2004.
Recidivism rates changed little between
the 1999 and 2004 release cohorts,
despite more than 63,000 more people
being discharged from prison in 2004.
The total number of releases from prison
increased by 13.5 percent in the 33 states
that reported data for both 1999 and 2004

“

I believe in, and we have, tough
statutes and sentences for those

who break our laws and endanger our
citizens and communities. As a result,
our crime rates are down. However, our
recidivism rate is still too high.
Reduction in recidivism means fewer
victims, and less prison costs.”
Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R)
January 12, 2011

(see Exhibit 1 for state-by-state data). The
number of prisoners released increased in
29 states but decreased in four. Across the
33 states that reported for both periods,
the recidivism rate declined slightly,
dropping 4.8 percent between the cohorts.
Despite a nearly two-decade decline
in national crime rates, the rate of
reincarceration for a new crime among
those persons released from prison
increased by 11.9 percent between the
two cohorts in this study. However, this
increase was offset by a 17.7 percent
drop in the rate of offenders returned
for a technical violation. These numbers
suggest that states are improving their
responses to community supervision
violations, thereby reserving prison space
for ex-offenders who have committed
new crimes. Nevertheless, the increase
in the rate of returns for new crimes
underscores the need for states to identify
and implement evidence-based strategies
that protect public safety and hold
offenders accountable.
Prior to this research, the most recent
studies of national recidivism rates
by BJS found that the rate of released

State of Recidivism: The Revolving Door of America’s Prisons

9

A Closer Look at Recidivism Rates

Exhibit 1

State Prison Releases and Recidivism Rates
Releases

1999–2002			
Recidivism

Releases

2004–2007

Recidivism

8,771

36.0%

10,880

35.1%

Alaska*

N/A

N/A

11,619

50.4%

Arizona

13,091

39.6%

15,795

39.1%

Arkansas*

5,663

49.0%

6,244

44.4%

California

126,456

61.1%

118,189

57.8%

Colorado

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

13,950

45.8%

16,100

43.7%

Delaware

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Florida

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

16,951

38.0%

18,972

34.8%

Hawaii

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Idaho

1,071

33.0%

1,574

33.6%

Illinois

25,025

51.8%

35,606

51.7%

Indiana

N/A

N/A

13,651

37.8%

Iowa*

2,953

32.4%

3,533

33.9%

Kansas*

5,088

55.1%

5,178

42.9%

Kentucky

7,622

38.8%

10,743

41.0%

Louisiana

12,787

43.9%

13,391

39.3%

Maine

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Maryland

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2,860

38.1%

2,299

42.2%

10,985

38.0%

14,217

31.0%

Minnesota

3,940

55.1%

5,189

61.2%

Mississippi

5,742

26.6%

8,428

33.3%

Missouri

12,974

48.7%

18,637

54.4%

Montana

906

41.8%

1,253

42.1%

Nebraska

1,612

28.8%

1,846

32.3%

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Alabama

Connecticut*

Georgia*

Massachusetts*
Michigan

Nevada

(continued)

10

Pew Center on the States

A Closer Look at Recidivism Rates

Exhibit 1

State Prison Releases and Recidivism Rates (continued)
Releases

1999–2002			
Recidivism

Releases

2004–2007

Recidivism

N/A

N/A

1,082

44.2%

New Jersey

14,034

48.2%

14,039

42.7%

New Mexico

N/A

N/A

3,615

43.8%

New York

25,592

39.9%

24,921

39.9%

North Carolina

23,445

43.8%

22,406

41.1%

N/A

N/A

845

39.6%

22,128

39.0%

26,695

39.6%

Oklahoma

7,802

24.1%

8,159

26.4%

Oregon

2,769

33.4%

4,202

22.8%

Pennsylvania

6,844

36.6%

8,750

39.6%

Rhode Island

N/A

N/A

770

30.8%

South Carolina

9,299

26.8%

11,211

31.8%

South Dakota

1,231

33.7%

2,034

45.5%

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

56,571

32.1%

72,130

31.9%

2,563

65.8%

3,056

53.7%

Vermont

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Virginia

8,997

29.0%

11,999

28.3%

Washington

5,738

32.8%

8,093

42.9%

N/A

N/A

1,346

26.8%

5,206

46.1%

8,501

46.0%

N/A

N/A

705

24.8%

470,666

45.4%

567,903

43.3%

New Hampshire*

North Dakota
Ohio

Tennessee
Texas*
Utah

West Virginia
Wisconsin*
Wyoming

Total

NOTES: The national total for 1999–2002 is not directly comparable to the national total for 2004–2007 because eight states
did not report data for the 1999–2002 cohort. The 2004–2007 recidivism rate for the 33 states that reported data in both
years is 43.3 percent, but the total releases are 534,270. Data are missing for nine states (Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii,
Maryland, Maine, Nevada, Tennessee and Vermont). Eight additional states provided data for 2004–2007 only (Alaska,
Indiana, North Dakota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island, West Virginia and Wyoming).
*See the jurisdictional notes in the Appendix for information about this state.
SOURCE: Pew/ASCA Recidivism Survey.

State of Recidivism: The Revolving Door of America’s Prisons

11

A Closer Look at Recidivism Rates

prisoners who were reincarcerated within
three years of release had increased
sharply.13 For inmates released in 1983,
the estimated national recidivism rate was
41.4 percent; for prisoners released in
1994, it had jumped to 51.8 percent. The
Pew/ASCA survey differs from the prior
BJS studies in many important ways.
See the Appendix for a discussion of the
differences between the studies.
While differences in survey methods
complicated direct comparisons of
national recidivism rates over time, a
comparison of the states included in both
the Pew/ASCA and BJS studies reveals
that recidivism rates have been largely
stable since the mid-1990s. The high
number of releases and rate of return for
offenders from California has a significant
impact on the national recidivism rates.
When California is excluded from the
national figures, the recidivism rate for the
remaining states declines to 39.7 percent
and 38.5 percent for the 1999 and 2004
release cohorts, respectively. These rates
are similar to the 40.1 percent rate that
BJS produced for its 1994 release cohort
when excluding California. This suggests
that the overall national recidivism rate
has been largely stable, with roughly four
in 10 prisoners returning to prison within
three years of release.

State Rates Vary Widely
The national recidivism rates provide
an important barometer of return on

12

Pew Center on the States

correctional investment, but they obscure
key differences among the states. The
correctional landscape varies dramatically
in scale, policy and practice from state
to state, rendering national estimates
helpful for understanding broad trends
and developments, but ill suited for
identifying state progress and promising
areas for improvement. State-level analyses
uncovered interesting findings related to
prisoner releases and rates of recidivism in
the past decade.
Recidivism among 1999 Releases

In the 33 states that reported data for
the 1999 release cohort, 45.4 percent
of inmates released from prison were
reincarcerated within three years. Utah

Comparing State Rates:
A Note of Caution
Readers are advised to use caution
when comparing recidivism rates
across states. A state’s recidivism rate
is the product of numerous variables,
and valid interstate assessments are
possible only with careful study and
analysis of the wide range of unique
conditions affecting corrections
agencies in each state.
See the Appendix for a discussion
of interstate differences in the
measurement and reporting of
recidivism rates.

A Closer Look at Recidivism Rates

had the highest rate of recidivism, with
65.8 percent of those released from
prison sent back within three years. In
five states, more than half of released
prisoners were returned to prison during
the follow-up period.
Oklahoma had the lowest rate of
recidivism, with 24.1 percent of released
prisoners returned to custody. Four other
states (Mississippi, Nebraska, South
Carolina and Virginia) reported three-year
recidivism rates of less than 30 percent.
Breaking the numbers down further, 19.9
percent of all released offenders were
reincarcerated for a new crime and 25.5
percent were returned for a technical
violation of supervision (Exhibit 2). States’
rates of recidivism for a new crime ranged
from a high of 41.9 percent in North
Carolina to a low of 8 percent in Georgia.
Recidivism for technical violations was
equally varied, topping out at 51.2 percent
in Utah and dipping as low as 1.9 percent
in North Carolina.
Recidivism among 2004 Releases

Findings for the 2004 release cohort
largely mirrored those for the 1999 group,
with some interesting state variations.
Figures from the 41 participating states
showed that 43.3 percent of people
released from prison in 2004 were
returned within three years. Minnesota
reported the highest recidivism rate,
with 61.2 percent of released prisoners

returning to custody within three years.
Six states had recidivism rates that were
above 50 percent.
Oregon had the lowest rate of recidivism
in the country for prisoners released in
2004—22.8 percent. Nationally five states
reported recidivism rates under 30 percent
for their 2004 releases.
Among this group of released offenders,
22.3 percent were returned to prison
for a new crime and 21 percent were
returned for a technical violation
of supervision. Alaska reported the
highest rate of recidivism for a new
crime (44.7 percent), while Montana
reported the lowest rate (4.7 percent).
A look at technical violations leading
to reincarceration showed rates as
high as 40.3 percent in Missouri and
as low as zero in Arkansas. The reason
for Arkansas’s results: the Department
of Community Corrections operates
two distinct programs as alternatives
to traditional incarceration for adult
offenders who fail to comply with the
terms of parole supervision.

How Have Recidivism
Rates Changed?
The Pew/ASCA study shows a nearly even
split between states that had increasing
and decreasing rates of recidivism between
the 1999 and 2004 releases (Exhibit 3).
Oregon, Kansas and Utah led the country
in declining returns to prison during the

State of Recidivism: The Revolving Door of America’s Prisons

13

Exhibit 2

The Cycle of Prison Release
This graph shows the proportion of released offenders who returned to prison for either committing
a new crime or a technical violation as well as those who did not return within three years.
NEW CRIME
ALABAMA

17%
2004 17%

64%
65%

18%
18%

1999

ARIZONA

22%
2004 28%
1999

ARKANSAS

16%
2004 44%
1999

51%
56%

1999

39%
42%

1999

54%
56%

1999

62%
65%

1999

67%
66%

1999

48%
48%

1999

68%
66%

1999

45%
57%

1999

61%
59%

1999

56%
61%

1999

62%
58%

1999

62%
69%

1999

45%
39%

1999

14%
2004 18%

47%
40%

CONNECTICUT

40%
2004 39%

5%
4%

1999

GEORGIA

30%
28%

IDAHO

11%
2004 12%

22%
22%

1999

ILLINOIS

30%
2004 27%

22%
25%

1999

IOWA

24%
2004 23%

9%
11%

1999

KANSAS

10%
2004 12%

45%
31%

1999

KENTUCKY

9%
2004 11%

30%
30%

1999

LOUISIANA

19%
2004 19%
1999

25%
20%

MASSACHUSETTS

31%
2004 33%

7%
9%

1999

1999

MICHIGAN

13%
2004 15%

25%
16%

MINNESOTA

33%
2004 36%
1999

MISSISSIPPI

13%
2004 12%
1999

2004

15%
14%

MONTANA
1999
2004

9%
5%

73%
67%

14%
22%

MISSOURI
1999

22%
26%

34%
40%

33%
37%

51%
46%
58%
58%

71%
68%

9%
12%

20%
21%

NEW JERSEY

33%

CALIFORNIA

8%
2004 7%

2004

60%
61%

0%

NO RETURN

NEBRASKA
1999

18%
12%

1999

1999

TECHNICAL VIOLATION

1999
2004

52%
57%

32%
27%

16%
15%

NEW YORK
2004

60%
60%

28%
29%

12%
11%

NORTH CAROLINA
2004

2%
1%

42%
40%

OHIO
2004

12%
7%

27%
33%

OKLAHOMA
2004

21%
15%

2004

28%
19%

6%

3%

PENNSYLVANIA
2004

14%
16%

61%
60%
76%
74%

3%
11%

OREGON

56%
59%

23%
24%

67%
77%
63%
60%

SOUTH CAROLINA
2004

19%
23%

73%
68%

8%
9%

SOUTH DAKOTA
2004

11%
12%

TEXAS
2004

2004

24%
27%

8%
5%

UTAH

51%
32%

15%
21%

VIRGINIA
2004

23%
34%

21%
23%

8%
5%

27%
23%

6%
19%

WISCONSIN
2004

26%
21%

68%
68%
34%
46%
71%
72%

WASHINGTON
2004

66%
55%

20%
25%

67%
57%
54%
54%

States providing data only for 2004–2007:
Alaska (NC=45%; TV=6%; NR=50%)
Indiana (NC=21%; TV=17%; NR=62%)
New Hampshire (NC=7%; TV=37%; NR=56%)
New Mexico (NC=21%; TV=23%; NR=56%)
North Dakota (NC=16%; TV=23%; NR=60%)
Rhode Island (NC=21%; TV=10%; NR=69%)
West Virginia (NC=10%; TV=16%; NR=73%)
Wyoming (NC=11%; TV=14%; NR=75%)
SOURCE: Pew/ASCA Recidivism Survey.

A Closer Look at Recidivism Rates

study period, with Oregon reporting the
steepest drop of 31.9 percent. Louisiana,
Michigan and New Jersey also reported
decreases of at least 10 percent.

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

Focusing the lens more tightly, Montana
Meanwhile, South Dakota and Washington and Oregon documented the largest
State reported increases of greater than 30 declines in new crime returns while North
percent. Six other states (Massachusetts,
Carolina, Ohio and Oregon reported the
Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
largest decreases in returns for technical
Nebraska and South Carolina) reported
violations of supervision.
Exhibit 3

The State of Recidivism

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

Changes in Recidivism Rates Between 1999–2002 and 2004–2007

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

WA

30.8%

N/A
MT

ND

0.7%

OR

-31.9%

11.1%
ID

-0.2%

34.9%

WY

12.1%

IL

-0.1%
CO

-5.5%

KS

-22.1%
AZ

-1.2%

OK

9.4%

NM

MI

4.7%

UT

-18.4%

OH

1.6%

IN

MO

AK

NC

-6.1%

TN

AR
-9.3%

LA

VA

-2.6%

5.6%

SC

19.0%
-2.4%

VT
NH

KY

11.7%

AL

-0.8%

PA

8.4%
WV

MS
TX

0.1%

-18.2%

IA

NE

NV

NY

WI

SD

2.0%

CA

ME

MN

MA

10.7%

RI
CT

-4.4%

NJ

-11.4%

DE

GA

-8.3%

MD

25.1%

DC

-10.7%
FL

HI

SOURCE: Pew/ASCA Recidivism Survey.

State of Recidivism: The Revolving Door of America’s Prisons

15

Unpacking the Numbers
Recidivism rates vary widely among the
states, and there are a number of potential
explanations for the differences. Many
deliberate policy decisions, such as the
types of offenders sentenced to prison, how
inmates are selected for release, the length
of stay under supervision, and decisions
about how to respond to violations of
supervision, can have a large impact on
recidivism rates. States differ markedly with
regard to these practices, which influence
recidivism rates to a strikingly high degree.
In other words, the numbers are only one
piece of the puzzle. In order to understand
the significance of a state’s recidivism rate,
one must examine the underlying policies
and practices that impact the number.

How Does Sentencing Policy
Impact Recidivism Rates?
States that send comparatively low-risk
offenders to prison are likely to see lower
rearrest and violation rates compared with
states that concentrate prison space on
more dangerous offenders. If, for example,
a state incarcerates a large proportion of
lower-risk offenders, then its recidivism rate
might be comparatively low, because such
offenders would be, by definition, less of a

risk to return to prison. A state with a larger
percentage of serious offenders behind
bars, on the other hand, might experience
higher rates of reincarceration when those
offenders return to the community.
Oklahoma exemplifies the former example:
“A lot of people who might be put on
probation or diverted into an alternative
program in another state wind up going
to prison in Oklahoma,” notes Michael
Connelly, administrator of evaluation and
analysis in the Oklahoma Department of
Corrections. “These lower level folks aren’t
as likely to recidivate, so it benefits our
overall numbers and makes us look like
we’re doing an even better job than we’re
doing.” Oklahoma’s overall recidivism rate
for offenders released in 2004 was 26.4
percent, the third lowest in the country, the
Pew/ASCA survey found.

How Does Community
Corrections Policy Impact
Recidivism Rates?
Few practices can influence a state’s
recidivism rate more dramatically than
its handling of technical violations of
conditions of supervision. As a result,

State of Recidivism: The Revolving Door of America’s Prisons

17

Unpacking the Numbers

“

“It is easy to see that we are at a
critical turning point in criminal

justice policies—one that will hopefully
result in smart and tough policies to
protect the public.”
Texas State Rep. Jerry Madden (R)
May 11, 2010

taking a close look at a state’s management
of such violations is key to understanding
what its recidivism rate really means.
First, states that have shorter periods of
post-prison supervision may have lower
rates of revocation to prison, because their
offenders must comply with supervision
rules for shorter periods. North Carolina
is a good example of this policy. Parole
supervision in North Carolina lasts
between six and nine months, an unusually
short period. Not surprisingly, the state had
the second lowest rate of technical violators
returned to prison among offenders
released in 2004—less than 1 percent. If
you are not on parole, you are not going to
be reincarcerated on a technical violation.
By contrast, North Carolina has a relatively
high rate of return for new crimes—40.4
percent for offenders released in 2004—
placing it in the top third among states by
that measure.
Second, the ability of supervision agencies
to detect violations and how they respond

18

Pew Center on the States

to such violations have a substantial
impact on recidivism rates. Detection can
depend on caseload sizes; the number
and complexity of the rules and programs
with which offenders must comply; the
availability of drug testing and GPS and
other monitoring systems; and the strength
of the relationships that officers have
with offenders’ families and communities.
Responses to violations are guided by
supervision philosophy, and the laws
and policies that specify what officers are
supposed to do when various violations
are discovered.14 The examples below
illustrate a few ways in which management
of technical violations can influence the
recidivism rate.
In some states, released offenders who
break the rules of their supervision are
routinely punished with a short prison
stay. California, for example, has for
years taken this route, an approach that
has helped to keep its prison population
the highest in the nation. In other states,
such as Oregon, the practice is to use
prison only as a last resort, and technical
violations are instead met with a range of
sanctions in the community, sometimes
including time in jail. The state that uses
prison as a response would have a higher
recidivism rate, because a violator’s return
to prison is counted in the calculation.
But that higher rate would not necessarily
mean that state is doing a worse job
preparing offenders to succeed in the
community. Rather, it is merely a reflection
of how transgressions are handled.

Unpacking the Numbers

Another variable in the mix is a state’s
fundamental parole policy. In some “truth
in sentencing” states, where offenders
serve 85 percent or more of their prison
terms, there are proportionally fewer
people on parole, because inmates will
have at most 15 percent of their sentence
left after release. Fewer parolees translate
into fewer violations, and therefore a lower
recidivism rate. Arizona, which applies
a strict truth in sentencing standard to
nonviolent as well as violent offenders,
may be a case in point. The Pew/ASCA
survey data show that only 11.5 percent
of Arizona offenders released in 2004
returned to prison on a technical violation,
ranking it in the lower third among states
participating in the survey.
California is just the opposite. There,
almost everyone released from prison
goes on mandatory parole, typically for
three years. That is a long time to abide
by the often strict conditions imposed
on parolees. This partly explains why
California ranked second among states
in the proportion of released offenders
from 2004 who were returned to prison
for technical violations within three
years, with a rate of 40 percent. The
proportion of released California offenders
reimprisoned for new crimes, meanwhile,
was just 17.7 percent, ranking it in the
bottom half of states.
These kinds of differences substantially
complicate interstate comparisons,
and, much in the same way the Federal

Bureau of Investigation cautions against
comparing state crime rates, great care
should be used in comparing state
recidivism rates. Differences among states
certainly should prompt many questions,
such as “Why is the rate in my state so
much higher than our neighbor’s?” But
looking at the change within a state
over time is more likely to yield a valid
sense of the performance of any state’s
corrections system.

Attacking Recidivism:
Examples from Three States
Assessing a state’s correctional performance
requires linking recidivism rates with
the specific policies and practices that
impact the frequency with which persons
reoffend. Oregon, Michigan and Missouri
are three states that took thoughtful
and concerted steps to put research into
practice. While none of the three would
argue it has the perfect system, their stories
help illuminate strategies that can help cut
reoffending and corrections costs.

“

“We were frustrated with the
revolving door of people moving

in and out of the system …The question
was, are we doing the best we can do with
the resources we’ve got?”
North Little Rock (AR) Police Chief Danny Bradley
March 7, 2011

State of Recidivism: The Revolving Door of America’s Prisons

19

Unpacking the Numbers

Leading the Way
in Oregon

One state considered a national
standout in reducing recidivism is
Oregon. For offenders released in
2004, Oregon recorded the lowest
overall recidivism rate among the
41 reporting states, a rate of 22.8
percent. Oregon also experienced the
biggest decline in recidivism from
1999 to 2004, a drop of almost 32
percent. Oregon officials attribute
their success to a comprehensive
approach to reform and a commitment
to change that reaches across all
levels of government—from the
supervision officer in the field, to the
judiciary, through the state corrections
department and up the ranks of
legislative leadership.
In prison, Oregon inmates receive
risk and needs assessments at intake,
and targeted case management during
incarceration, along with detailed
transition planning that begins
six months before release. In the
community, probation officers use
a sanctioning grid to impose swift,
certain consequences for violations,
creating consistency across offenders
and from county to county. In both
settings, offender programs are
anchored in research and continually
monitored and updated to optimize
their effectiveness.

20

Pew Center on the States

The change in the handling of offenders
who violate terms of their supervision
was striking. In the past, parole and
probation violators filled more than a
quarter of Oregon’s prison beds. Today
violators are rarely reincarcerated.
Instead, they face an array of graduated
sanctions in the community, including
a short jail stay as needed to hold
violators accountable. Results of the
Pew/ASCA survey confirmed this—
only 5.9 percent of offenders released
in 1999 and 3.3 percent of the 2004
cohort were returned to prison on
technical violations.
“It’s pretty rare in Oregon for someone
to be violated all the way back to
prison,” said Oregon Director of
Corrections Max Williams, “so we
don’t have that revolving door that
puts so much pressure on the prison
population in other states.”
A key piece of legislation, passed with
bipartisan support in 2003, helped
fuel Oregon’s efforts. The bill, SB 267,
required that any correctional program
receiving state money be evidence-based
in its design and delivery.15
“I think the bill pushed Oregon forward
at a faster pace, and forced us to make
sure our programs were truly translating
the best available research into practice in
the field,” Williams said.

Unpacking the Numbers

Turning the Tide
in Michigan

At the start of the millennium, Michigan
did not look like a state on the cusp of
inspiring correctional reform. Its myriad
problems included high crime rates,
a sharply rising inmate population,
disappointing recidivism numbers and an
economy deeply wounded by the ailing
auto industry. By 2002, the state was
sinking $1.6 billion a year into corrections,
almost one-fifth of its general fund.

providers. After release, officers use
firm but flexible graduated sanctions­—
including short stays in a reentry center
if needed—to manage rule breaking
before it escalates to more serious
transgressions.

The Pew/ASCA recidivism survey found
a mixed picture in Michigan. Recidivism
declined by 18 percent between 1999
and 2004 because of a dramatic drop in
the reincarceration of technical violators,
but returns to prison for new crimes
jumped by almost 21 percent during the
Less than a decade later, Michigan is riding period. Those numbers, however, do not
a wave of policy changes that have allowed capture progress that has occurred under
MPRI since Pew’s observation period
it to shrink its inmate population by 12
ended in 2007.
percent, close more than 20 correctional
facilities and keep a growing number of
parolees from returning to custody.
Overall, post-2007 preliminary figures
from the Michigan Department of
The cornerstone of the effort is the
Corrections show that parolees released
Michigan Prisoner Reentry Initiative
through the MPRI are returning to prison
(MPRI). Launched in 2003 and expanded 33 percent less frequently than similar
statewide in 2008, the initiative’s mission offenders who do not participate in the
is to equip every released offender with
program. A closer look at all offenders
tools to succeed in the community. MPRI released from Michigan prisons reveals
begins at intake, when a prisoner’s risk,
that parole revocations for both new
needs and strengths are measured to
crimes and technical violations are at their
develop individualized programming.
lowest level since record keeping began
Prior to parole, offenders are transferred 23 years ago. In 2009, there were 195
to a reentry facility, and a transition plan, revocations for every 1,000 parolees—101
which addresses employment, housing,
were for technical violations and 94 were
transportation, mentoring, counseling
for new crimes. A decade earlier, that
and any necessary treatment for mental
figure was 344 revocations per 1,000
illness or addictions, is finalized in close parolees—246 for technical violations and
collaboration with community service
98 for new criminal convictions.

State of Recidivism: The Revolving Door of America’s Prisons

21

Unpacking the Numbers

The trend is particularly significant because
Michigan’s parole population has grown
dramatically in recent years. As MPRI has
produced positive results, members of
the state’s Parole & Commutation Board
have become increasingly confident about
parolee success, leading to higher parole
approval rates. As a result, the state paroled
roughly 3,000 more prisoners in 2009
than it did in 2006.

“Although the roots of MPRI were clearly
in a budget crisis, it was never only about
saving money—it was a belief that doing
corrections ‘right’ would result in a smaller
prison system and large savings,” recalled
former Michigan Director of Corrections
Patricia L. Caruso. “We had to change our
entire culture to focus on success. It was
challenging, but fortunately, it worked.”

Tackling Technical
Violations in Missouri

“

I want to be absolutely clear. I am
not advocating that we reduce

prison populations just to save money.
Nonviolent offenders are still law
breakers, and they will break laws until
they learn their lesson. What I am saying is
that we need to do a better job teaching
nonviolent offenders the right lessons.
That takes more than prison; it takes more
than slap-on-the-wrist-probation. Drug
and alcohol addiction must be broken;
discipline and job skills must be learned.
When that can be done better, outside of
expensive prison walls, that is what we
should do. Results matter, public safety
matters, taxpayer dollars matter, saving
lives and restoring families matter.”
Chief Justice William Ray Price Jr.,
Supreme Court of Missouri
February 9, 2011

22

Pew Center on the States

In early 2002, Missouri faced a dilemma
familiar to many states: A jump in the
prison population had stretched capacity
to the limit, yet budget woes and other
funding priorities meant there were no
dollars to increase prison capacity. The
message from the governor’s office and
General Assembly was clear—no more
prisons. Find another way to cope.
In response, Missouri policy makers
took a hard look at what was
driving their inmate population
upward. Longer terms brought on
by mandatory minimum sentencing
were partly responsible. But the
primary contributor was a steep rise
in the number of parole and probation
violators behind bars. The Pew/ASCA
data confirm the diagnosis. In 2004,
the state recorded an overall recidivism
rate of 54.4 percent—the third highest
among the states. Missouri also ranked

Unpacking the Numbers

highest in the proportion of released
offenders imprisoned for a technical
violation (40.3 percent). That factor
contributed to an overall increase in
recidivism in Missouri of 12 percent
between 1999 and 2004.

of sanctions they may impose, from a
verbal reprimand or modification of
conditions, to electronic monitoring,
residential drug treatment or “shock
time” in jail.

“Every possible avenue is tried for that
Over the next four years, Missouri mapped individual before we resort to sending
out a meticulous plan for managing all
him back to prison,” Missouri Director
but the most serious violators in the
of Corrections George Lombardi said.
community. It began with a work group
“That approach is just part of our
that analyzed revocations, evolved into
culture now.”
an inter-agency team that drafted a vision
and set goals, continued through a pilot
The payoff has been dramatic: 46 percent
project and ultimately took flight through of offenders released in fiscal year 2004,
new policies and procedures, coupled
for example, were returned to prison
with extensive parole and probation staff
within two years, either for a new crime
training, in 2006.
or technical violation. Since then, that rate
has dropped steadily, and reached a low of
Today released offenders in Missouri are 36.4 percent for offenders released in fiscal
subject to “e-driven supervision” (the “e” year 2009.
is for evidence), which uses a new risk
assessment tool to categorize parolees
Missouri’s prison population, meanwhile,
and help set supervision levels. When
has held steady at about 30,500 inmates
violations occur, officers have a range
since 2005.

State of Recidivism: The Revolving Door of America’s Prisons

23

Improving Public Safety and
Cutting Correctional Costs
With state revenues down and lawmakers
forced to make cuts to vital public
programs, corrections spending is under
scrutiny like never before. Leaders
from across the political spectrum are
demanding a more effective correctional
system that reduces recidivism and
delivers taxpayers a higher public safety
return on their investment.

cutting back on inmate transportation
costs and improving energy efficiency in
facilities.17

Sentencing and release policies: Several
states are reexamining their statutes
that help determine who goes to prison
and how long they stay. Many states are
updating the dollar thresholds for various
property crimes, realizing they have not
been adjusted since the 1960s, while
States have been seeking better results in
others are modifying penalties for drug
four main areas:
crimes, including making more offenders
Staff and program cuts: The vast majority eligible for prison alternatives.18 Other
states are instituting or changing earnedof states recently made or plan to make
time credit incentives for inmates.
cuts to personnel and programs to save
money. A recent survey of state corrections
Recidivism reduction strategies: Finally,
departments by the Vera Institute of
almost all states have under way a variety of
Justice showed that least 32 states have
efforts to break the cycle of recidivism. In
implemented staff reductions or hiring
addition to improving correctional policy
freezes, and 22 states have eliminated
and practice, many of these initiatives
programs or instituted cut-backs.16
involve coordination of offender services
Operating efficiencies: To save additional with other government agencies, such as
dollars, a number of states are finding
health and housing, and community- and
ways to operate more efficiently by
faith-based organizations.19
reducing the number of prison beds and
Policies targeted at reducing recidivism
closing facilities, reining in food service
costs, investing in technology to streamline offer perhaps the ripest opportunities
for achieving the twin goals of less
and improve institutional surveillance,

State of Recidivism: The Revolving Door of America’s Prisons

25

Improving Public Safety and Cutting Correctional Costs

crime and lower costs. Research
indicates that strong implementation
of evidence-based practices (EBP)
and programs can reduce recidivism
rates by 50 percent.20 Such powerful
results were seen recently in Arizona,
where a combination of new legislation
and persistent efforts by the courts
and probation officials to adopt EBP
resulted in a 31 percent drop in new
felony convictions of probationers
during the past two years.21

Reducing Recidivism:
Strategies for Success

Many states already are employing
a mix of strategies proven to break
the cycle of recidivism. Research
shows that the largest reductions in
recidivism are realized when evidencebased programs and practices are
implemented in prisons and govern
the supervision of probationers
and parolees in the community
post-release. While outlining a
That kind of change is unlikely
comprehensive reentry strategy
nationwide over a short period, but
is beyond the scope of this study,
Pew calculates that if the 41 states that
leaders in the field have published
responded to our survey with 2004 data helpful resources that are available to
could reduce their recidivism rates by
policy makers and practitioners (see
just 10 percent, they could save more
sidebar). For purposes of this report,
than $635 million in averted prison
we highlight a condensed array of
costs in one year alone (see Exhibit
approaches that states have used to
4 for an analysis of 10 states). More
reduce recidivism, hold offenders
importantly, the drop in recidivism
accountable and control corrections
would mean fewer victims of crime.
costs.
Exhibit 4

Protecting Public Safety and Cutting Costs
If just the 10 states with the greatest potential cost savings reduced their recidivism rates by 10
percent, they could save more than $470 million in a single year.
(Potential Annual Cost Savings in Millions)
CA

NY

IL

TX

$233.1

$42.0

$39.8

$33.6

AK

OH

$24.6 $24.3

NC

CT

NJ

MO

$23.0 $20.8 $16.8 $14.4

$472.5 million
NOTE: Potential cost savings were calculated by multiplying each state’s annual operating cost per inmate in 2005 by
one-tenth of the number of offenders who returned to prison in 2004–2007. Annual operating costs per inmate in 2005 are
from Pew Center on the States, Public Safety, Public Spending: Forecasting America’s Prison Population 2007–2011
(Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts, June 2007). To achieve the full estimated savings, states would have to close
correctional facilities.
SOURCE: Pew/ASCA Recidivism Survey.

26

Pew Center on the States

Improving Public Safety and Cutting Correctional Costs

Resources for Developing Effective Reentry
and Supervision Strategies
During the past decade, a number of leading criminal justice organizations,
stakeholders and community leaders have developed comprehensive reentry and
supervision strategies. There are a number of resources in the field aimed at helping
policy makers and practitioners implement effective, evidence-based correctional
policies and programs, including:
n Council of State Governments: Report of the Re-Entry Policy Council: Charting

the Safe and Successful Return of Prisoners to the Community and the many
materials from the CSG Justice Center’s National Reentry Resource Center.22
n Urban Institute: Putting Public Safety First: 13 Parole Supervision Strategies to

Enhance Reentry Outcomes 23
n National Governors Association Center for Best Practices: Improving Prisoner

Reentry through Strategic Policy Innovations 24
n U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Corrections and Crime

& Justice Institute: Implementing Evidence-Based Policy and Practice in
Community Corrections 25
n Pew Center on the States, Public Safety Performance Project: Policy Framework

to Strengthen Community Corrections 26

1. Define Success as Recidivism
Reduction and Measure and Reward
Progress

Although America’s first prisons were
aimed at rehabilitation, in the twentieth
century the mission became command
and control. Keep the inmates inside the
walls, prevent riots, meet constitutionally
minimal standards of confinement and
make sure staff is safe. Those were, and
today remain, the chief marching orders
for most wardens. Setting up inmates for
success when they leave has not been part
of the job description.

Successful efforts to improve public safety
and control corrections costs should
start with defining, measuring, tracking
and rewarding correctional agencies’
performance in terms of recidivism
reduction. It is worrisome that not all
50 states were able or willing to provide
data on key public safety outcomes such
as the rate of reincarceration of released
offenders. States cannot determine
whether their correctional interventions
are effective if they lack the basic data
necessary to evaluate outcomes. Focusing
on desired results such as decreasing

State of Recidivism: The Revolving Door of America’s Prisons

27

Improving Public Safety and Cutting Correctional Costs

recidivism, reducing substance abuse,
increasing employment and paying
victim restitution encourages correctional
agencies to set goals for these important
outcomes, to track their performance and
to use that information to manage and
improve practice. Further, by offering
incentives to agencies that reach defined
targets, states can promote changes in
practices—and agency culture—that lead
to positive results for ex-offenders and
improve public safety.
A number of states have adopted reforms
to directly reduce recidivism, measure
progress and reward success. In Kansas,
for example, the legislature created the
Kansas Sentencing Commission with
the explicit responsibility of measuring
and monitoring the state’s progress in

“

As a former prosecutor, I believe
strongly in securing tough and

appropriate prison sentences for people
who break our laws. But it is also
important that we do everything we can
to ensure that when these people get out
of prison, they enter our communities as
productive members of society, so we can
start to reverse the dangerous cycles of
recidivism and violence.”
U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy
(D-VT, chair, Judiciary Committee)
July 21, 2010

28

Pew Center on the States

reducing recidivism.27 More recently,
the Kansas legislature implemented
incentive funding for diverting technical
violators away from the expensive option
of reincarceration. Legislation passed
in 2007 provided $4 million annually
in state grants to county community
corrections programs that submit plans
to reduce revocations to prison by 20
percent.28 Similarly, in the past three years,
Arizona, California, Illinois and South
Carolina each have passed legislation that
sets up “performance incentive funding”
programs for probation departments to
reduce recidivism and technical violation
rates.29 The Arizona program provides
refunds— equal to up to 40 percent of the
resultant cost savings—to counties that cut
revocations to prison.30
The federal government, which provides
hundreds of millions in aid annually to
state and local justice systems, could help
accelerate the trend toward results-based
corrections. Similar to efforts that reward
success in education and other fields,
appropriate justice awards could be linked
to progress on reducing recidivism and
other key objectives.
2. Begin Preparation for Release at
Time of Prison Admission

Prior to the past decade, little was done
to smooth an offender’s transition from
prison back to the community. In most
states, offenders typically were set free with
a few dollars and the phone number of the
local parole office. While the impulse to

Improving Public Safety and Cutting Correctional Costs

do the bare minimum may have reflected
public sentiment, it did little to enhance
public safety.
Over time, research has revealed a series
of critical steps that can put offenders on a
path to success. A large and growing body
of evidence shows that the first such step is
careful planning for release. Beginning at the
time of prison admission, such pre-release
preparation can yield positive results in the
crucial first months after an offender returns
to the community when he or she is at
greatest risk of returning to prison.31
The process should begin with a thorough
screening and assessment at intake to
identify potentially urgent needs, such
as substance abuse treatment and mental
health services. The assessment should
guide a case management plan during
incarceration that uses evidence-based
programming tailored to each offender’s
criminal risk factors. While in prison,
offenders should develop relationships
with parole officers and others who will
be integral to their lives after release.
Ensuring that conditions of supervision
at home are clearly communicated and
tailored to each individual’s risk factors for
reoffending is equally critical, and should
be conveyed prior to an offender’s release.
In Oregon and Michigan, for example, field
staff connect with inmates to help explore
housing options, identify the need for
mental health or other community services,
and clearly communicate expectations and
the rules of supervision.32

“

It’s time to end business as usual
in our prison system and for

legislators to think and act with courage
and creativity. We can make sensible and
proven reforms to our criminal justice
system that will cut prison costs while
keeping the public safe.”
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R)
January 8, 2011

3. Optimize Use of Supervision
Resources

Decades of research have produced ample
evidence and professional consensus
about which case management strategies
most effectively reduce recidivism
and improve public safety. Effective
community supervision begins with
validated risk and needs assessments,
the accurate categorization of offenders
by their risk of reoffending and the
development and implementation of case
plans based on an individual’s needs and
risk of reoffending.
The identification of risk and needs is
a critical step, because supervision and
programs are most effective at reducing
future crime when they are specific
to an offender’s individual profile.33
Failing to match treatment with an
offender’s risk level can, in fact, have
serious consequences. Research shows,
for example, that putting lower-risk

State of Recidivism: The Revolving Door of America’s Prisons

29

Improving Public Safety and Cutting Correctional Costs

“

“If you just throw everyone in jail,
it’s terribly expensive and they get

out and they are in the same boat.”
Kentucky State Sen. Tom Jensen (R)
March 5, 2011

offenders in intensive programming
actually increases their recidivism rates.34
Evidence-based interventions targeting
offenders with a moderate to high risk of
committing new crimes produce better
outcomes for both the offenders and the
community.35
Programming also is key, as research
demonstrates that a combination of
surveillance and treatment is more
effective at reducing recidivism than
reliance on monitoring and control
alone.36 Supervision can improve public
safety and individual outcomes while
maximizing the use of scarce correctional
dollars by focusing on high-risk offenders
and incorporating critical communitybased mental health and substance abuse
services, education and employment
assistance.
Some states have codified the use of risk
and needs assessments and individualized
treatment plans and directed resources
toward higher risk offenders. For example,
in 2010 New Hampshire passed a bill
mandating the administration of risk and

30

Pew Center on the States

needs assessments to all offenders on
probation and parole to inform decisions
about the length of active supervision
terms.37 Illinois passed a similar law in
2009, creating a task force to deploy a
tool to evaluate offenders’ risks, needs and
resources necessary to improve outcomes.
The state mandated use of this tool with
at least 75 percent of the incarcerated and
parole populations within five years.38
Washington’s Offender Accountability
Act, passed in 1999, required that felony
offenders be classified according to their
risk of reoffending, and that those at higher
risk receive proportionally more staff
attention and rehabilitation resources.39
4. Impose Swift and Certain Sanctions

Some technical violators should
undoubtedly be returned to prison,
particularly those who violate conditions
such as “stay away” orders that have a
direct link to victim safety. But progressive
sanctions that hold the offender
accountable and keep him or her in the
community—and therefore connected to
family and employment—can be just as
effective, if not more effective, than a costly
revocation.40
When using alternative sanctions,
agencies should ensure their officers
respond to violations swiftly with
consequences that are proportional to
the seriousness of the wrongdoing. One
model of this approach is delivering
remarkable results in Honolulu, Hawaii,

Improving Public Safety and Cutting Correctional Costs

where the penalty for rule-breakers is a
swift and certain few days in jail. Aided
by collaboration among prosecutors
and defense counsel, police, probation
officers and treatment providers,
Hawaii’s Opportunity Probation with
Enforcement (HOPE) program has
proven in a randomized controlled trial
to cut both revocations and new arrests
by more than 50 percent.41
5. Create Incentives for Offenders
to Succeed

Criminal justice professionals and
academics have long debated whether
parole and probation agencies should
tilt more toward law enforcement or
social work. The result is a system that
tries to do a little of both, and ends
up being mainly reactive, waiting for
offenders to break the rules and then
figuring out how to punish them.
More recently, the field has begun
to benefit from research that shows
offenders, just like everyone else, respond
better to the prospect of rewards than
to the fear of punishment. Behavioral
incentives, such as offering ex-offenders
the opportunity to reduce the length of
their supervision terms, can be a powerful
carrot, motivating them to obtain and
hold a job, stay sober and in treatment,
abide by other conditions of release
and avoid new crimes.42 In addition to
promoting positive behavior by offenders,
earned-time credits help clear low-risk
offenders from caseloads so supervision

agencies can focus on higher-risk parolees
and on the critical period immediately
following release.
A growing number of states are
embracing earned-time credits as part
of their correctional approach. In the
past three years, Arizona and South
Carolina passed laws authorizing their
courts to reduce the term of an offender’s
probation by up to 20 days per month
for every month the offender meets
certain measures of compliance.43
Nevada passed a similar law granting
earned-time credit to offenders who
meet specified education and treatment
conditions. Recent legislation in New
Hampshire directed the commissioner
of corrections to issue a rule establishing
standards for offenders to receive credit
for participation in recidivism reduction
programs.44

A Promising Start
The nation’s persistent fiscal crisis has
made corrections a prime focus for
policy makers. Even if states could
afford to keep building and operating
more prisons, recent research and the
experience of several states now make
it clear that there are strategies for
controlling low-risk offenders and those
who break the rules of their supervision
that cost less and are more effective.
Increasingly, lawmakers around the
country are recognizing that aggressive
recidivism reduction is a smarter

State of Recidivism: The Revolving Door of America’s Prisons

31

approach to curbing corrections costs and
protecting public safety.
At least 95 percent of inmates in America
ultimately will be released and returned
to the community.45 Keeping them crimeand drug-free is no easy assignment.
Many offenders lacked education,
work experience, family support and a
stable living situation before they were
incarcerated, and many suffer from mental
illness or a history of addiction. Once
released, ex-offenders have the added
stigma of a prison record, a considerable

32

Pew Center on the States

barrier to employment. Moreover, the
parole and probation agencies charged with
supervising them often are burdened with
high caseloads and outdated technologies.
Despite the obstacles, states such as
Oregon, Michigan and Missouri are
demonstrating success in reducing
victimization and closing the revolving
door that for so long has funneled a stream
of repeat offenders back into prison. Their
work and promising initiatives under way
in many other states deserve attention now
more than ever.

Appendix: Methodology
The Public Safety Performance Project
of the Pew Center on the States, in
conjunction with the Association of State
Correctional Administrators (ASCA),
conducted a 50-state survey of state
departments of correction during 2009.
Pew and ASCA collected data for two
cohorts released in calendar years 1999
and 2004. The questionnaire was designed
to collect recidivism data for sentenced
prisoners released from state correctional
facilities who returned to custody for
either a new criminal conviction or a
technical violation of the terms of their
supervision within 36 months of their
release. The survey asked states to report
an individual returned both for a new
conviction and a technical violation as a
new conviction.
Upon receipt of the surveys, Pew
followed up with the states to verify the
responses and solicit clarifications for
any outstanding questions. We received
responses from 33 states with data for
the 1999 release cohort and 41 states
with data for the 2004 cohort. Despite
our best efforts to collect uniform and
comparable data across states, the diversity
of state practices in data definitions makes

assembling purely analogous data difficult.
Specific areas of inconsistency include:
Period of Observation: The survey asked
states to report recidivism data for cohorts
released in calendar years 1999 and 2004.
Three states (Iowa, New Hampshire and
Texas) reported data from fiscal years 1999
and 2004.
First Releases versus All Releases:
States varied concerning whether they
reported only an inmate’s first release for a
particular offense during the calendar year,
or all releases. In the Pew/ASCA survey, 13
states provided data only on first releases
from prison (Exhibit A1).
Return for New Conviction versus
Technical Violation: The survey asked
states to classify any individual who was
returned to custody for both a technical
violation of the terms of his or her
supervision and for a conviction of a
new crime as having returned for a new
crime. However, due to limitations in data
collection and database management,
some states were unable to report in the
requested manner. Exhibit A2 shows
how states reported offenders who were

State of Recidivism: The Revolving Door of America’s Prisons

33

Appendix: Methodology

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

Differences Between the
Pew/ASCA Survey and BJS
Research
The Pew/ASCA survey and the earlier
BJS research differ in important ways.
First, the studies used distinct methods of
collecting recidivism data. The Pew/ASCA
survey asked all states to self-report data
on releases from and returns to prison.
For its research, BJS collected data for all
prison releases from 11 states in 1983
and 15 states in 1994 and drew a sample
from each of those states based on offense
category. Researchers then constructed
samples to match with offender “rap
sheet” data to create rates of rearrest,
reconviction and return to prison. BJS
analyzed these release cohorts for three
years following release.

Exhibit A1

States Providing Data on First
Releases versus Data for All
Releases
DATA FOR FIRST
RELEASES ONLY

DATA FOR ALL
RELEASES

Alaska

Alabama

California

Arizona

Indiana

Arkansas

Massachusetts

California

Mississippi

Connecticut*

Montana

Georgia

Nebraska

Illinois

New Jersey

Indiana*

North Carolina

Iowa

Oregon

Kansas

Pennsylvania

Kentucky

Rhode Island

Louisiana

South Dakota

Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
New Hampshire
New Mexico
New York
Ohio*
Oklahoma
South Carolina*

A second key difference between the
studies is that the Pew/ASCA survey
included more than twice as many states
as the BJS studies. The Pew/ASCA survey
includes either 18 or 26 more states than
the BJS 1994 recidivism study, depending
on which cohort is used as a point of
comparison. The 12 states that were
included in both the Pew/ASCA 1999
survey and the BJS 1994 study had an
average recidivism rate of 47.9 percent
34

Pew Center on the States

Texas
Utah
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
NOTES: Connecticut and South Carolina report only most
recent release. Indiana reports an offender’s first release in
a calendar year, but that may not necessarily be their first
release for their current offense. Ohio does not count more
than one release in the same calendar year. Idaho and North
Dakota did not verify release type.

Appendix: Methodology

for the 1999 cohort—a figure closer to
the 51.8 percent reported by BJS for
1994. When California is excluded from
the national figures, the recidivism rates
for the remaining states decline to 39.7
percent and 38.5 percent for the 1999
and 2004 release cohorts, respectively.
These rates are similar to the 40.1 percent
rate that BJS produced for its 1994 release
cohort when excluding California. The
inclusion of additional states contributes
to a more representative national
recidivism rate.
A third difference is that the Pew/ASCA
survey did not include individuals who
were released from prison in one state
and who may have been incarcerated
subsequently in another state. This is a
reflection of the self-report data gathering
process of the Pew/ASCA study. State
departments of correction reported on
people who returned to one of their
facilities, which would not count a former
offender who was incarcerated in another
state. The BJS study, on the other hand,
did include out-of-state incarceration data.
This is likely to impact states differently,
depending on proximity to high-crime
areas in neighboring states or major
interstate drug corridors, for example.
Finally, the BJS study collected data on
inmates who were being released for the
first time since beginning their current
sentence. Any individual who had been
released in a prior year and was released
again during 1994 on the same sentence

Exhibit A2

How States Classify the
Reasons Offenders Were
Returned to Prison
NEW CONVICTION

TECHNICAL VIOLATION

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

Indiana

California

Iowa

Connecticut

Kansas

Georgia

Massachusetts

Kentucky

Michigan

Louisiana

Minnesota

Montana

Missouri

New Hampshire

Nebraska

New Mexico

North Carolina

New York

Ohio

Rhode Island

Pennsylvania

West Virginia

South Carolina
Texas
Utah
Washington
Wisconsin
NOTES: Illinois, Mississippi, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Oregon
and Wyoming did not verify in all cases whether a person
returning to prison for a technical violation ultimately
would be updated and reclassified as a new conviction
subsequent to the final disposition of the case. South
Dakota and Virginia do not take jurisdictional control of an
offender until all outstanding charges have been processed.
Idaho and North Dakota did not verify how they classify an
offender’s return to prison.

would be excluded from their analysis.
In the Pew/ASCA study, only 13 states
reported data for first releases. The
remaining 28 states provided recidivism
data for all releases. These state reporting
variations and the out-of-state factor are
likely to account for a minimal part of the

State of Recidivism: The Revolving Door of America’s Prisons

35

Appendix: Methodology

difference in the recidivism rates between
the two methods.

Jurisdictional Notes
Within the 50 states and the District of
Columbia there are hundreds of prison,
probation and parole agencies (in addition
to many more jails and community
corrections agencies) operating with
different population and budget counting
rules. The following notes are provided to
explain some of these differences and to
account for many of the idiosyncrasies in
the reported data. The notes are based on
direct communication with state officials,
but they are not a complete description of
all counting issues.
Alaska—Alaska operates a unified prison
and jail system. The number of persons
released and returned to the custody of
the Department of Corrections includes
both prisoners and an unspecified
number of individuals housed in jail.
Arkansas—Since 2003 (women) and
2004 (men), the Arkansas Department of
Community Corrections has operated two
distinct programs that provide alternatives
to traditional incarceration for adult
offenders who fail to comply with terms of
parole supervision. This policy change has
impacted the rate of return to prison for a
technical violation for the 2004 cohort.
Connecticut—Connecticut operates
a unified prison and jail system. The

36

Pew Center on the States

number of persons released and returned
to the custody of the Department of
Corrections includes both prisoners and
an unspecified number of individuals
housed in jail.
Georgia—Beginning in 2000, Georgia
prohibited misdemeanants from being
supervised by state probation officers.
Misdemeanants placed on probation
were supervised by private probation
companies, county or municipal
providers. Prior to this change,
misdemeanants were subject to revocation
to prison as a result of their probation
status. As a result, an unspecified number
of misdemeanants may be present in the
1999 release cohort.
Iowa—Iowa reported data for its state
fiscal year (July 1 through June 30) rather
than calendar year.
Kansas—Kansas reported data for its state
fiscal year (July 1 through June 30) rather
than calendar year. Data include offenders
paroled to another criminal justice
jurisdiction if the offender was later
released from that jurisdiction during the
stated time frame. The data also include
offenders whose sentence has expired and
who will no longer be under the Kansas
Department of Corrections jurisdiction.
For readmissions, if the offender had
been discharged, he or she can be
admitted and classified only as “with a
new sentence.” For every readmission,
the state’s conviction file was checked to

Appendix: Methodology

see if there were any convictions entered
with the admission in which the offense
was committed while the offender was in
the community. This would then count
as an admission with a new sentence.
Any crimes committed while the offender
was incarcerated were not included.
The admission was to have occurred
within 36 months of release. Offenders
who were on post release/parole and
readmitted were counted as technical
violators if no new conviction (that was
committed in the community while the
offender was on post release/parole) was
found with the new admission.

during the three-year follow-up period.
For example, if an individual is returned
to custody for 30 days within the threeyear follow-up period, an additional 30
days will be added to time during which
he or she is monitored for the purposes of
calculating a recidivism rate. Wisconsin
counts case dispositions that go beyond
the three-year follow-up period if the
new crime took place during the followup period and disposition took place
later. For example, there is a 322-day
span between the crime date and a final
court disposition. A person in the 2004
release cohort who was subsequently readmitted to prison at the very end of the
follow-up period (12/31/2007), whose
Massachusetts—Massachusetts did
admission was classified as violator-no
not have data on releases to probation
new sentence, but who later received a
for 1999 so, in the interest of reporting
conviction for the crime that took place
comparable data, releases to probation
were excluded for the 2004 release cohort during the three-year follow-up period,
would be counted as a new conviction for
as well.
the 2004 release cohort.
New Hampshire—New Hampshire
In addition, Wisconsin represents
reported data for its state fiscal year
persons as recidivists (new conviction)
(July 1 through June 30) rather than
who committed a crime within the
calendar year.
three-year at-risk period, and whose
disposition for that crime resulted in a
Texas—Texas reported data for its state
prison admission. This means that, for
fiscal year (September 1 through August
example, a person in the 1999 release
31) rather than calendar year.
cohort who committed a crime in
Wisconsin—Wisconsin monitors
2000, but who was not apprehended,
persons three years from the day
charged, convicted and sentenced to
of release, plus any subsequent
prison until 2008, is still counted as a
reconfinement time in a Department of
recidivist (new conviction) under the
Corrections (DOC) facility experienced
Wisconsin DOC numbers.

State of Recidivism: The Revolving Door of America’s Prisons

37

Endnotes
1 Pew Center on the States, Prison Count 2010: State
Population Declines for the First Time in 38 Years
(Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts, April
2010).
2 National Association of State Budget Officers, 2009
State Expenditure Report (Washington, DC: National
Association of State Budget Officers, December 2010).
3 Ibid.
4 United States Census Bureau, State Government
Employment Data: March 2009, http://www2.census.gov/
govs/apes/09stus.txt.
5 “Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics Online,”
http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t31062009.pdf.
6 William Spelman, “The Limited Importance of
Prison Expansion,” in The Crime Drop in America,
eds. Alfred Blumstein and Joel Wallman (Cambridge
University Press, 2000), 97–129; Steven D. Levitt,
“Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990s: Four
Factors that Explain the Decline and Six that Do Not,”
Journal of Economic Perspectives 18, no. 1 (Winter 2004):
163–190, http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/
LevittUnderstandingWhyCrime2004.pdf.
7 The 19 states are Alaska, California, Connecticut,
Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New
York, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and
Wisconsin.
8 Washington State Institute for Public Policy, The
Criminal Justice System in Washington State: Incarceration
Rates, Taxpayer Costs, Crime Rates, and Prison Economics
(Olympia, WA: Jan. 2003).

9 Pew Center on the States, One in 31: The Long Reach
of American Corrections (Washington, DC: The Pew
Charitable Trusts, March 2009).
10 Appendix provides more information about the
methodology of this study.
11 This report does not measure the impact of
probation revocations to prison.
12 Releases for 1999 from Allen J. Beck, Jennifer C.
Karberg and Paige M. Harrison, Prison and Jail Inmates
at Midyear 2001, U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau
of Justice Statistics, (2002); releases for 2004 from
“Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics Online,”
http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t600092008.
pdf.
13 Allen J. Beck and Bernard Shipley, Recidivism of
Prisoners Released in 1983, U.S. Department of Justice,
Bureau of Justice Statistics, (1989); Patrick A. Langan
and David J. Levin, Recidivism of Prisoners Released in
1994, U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, (2002). Both reports are available online at
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbse&sid=44.
14 For a comprehensive analysis of state laws regarding
responses to parole and probation violations, see
National Conference of State Legislature’s Parole and
Probation Violations: State Responses, http://www.ncsl.org/
Portals/1/documents/cj/violationsreport.pdf; Pew Center
on the States, When Offenders Break the Rules—Smart
Responses to Parole and Probation Violations, http://www.
pewcenteronthestates.org/report_detail.aspx?id=32104.
15 See discussion of evidence-based practices in Pew
Center on the States, Policy Framework to Strengthen
Community Corrections (Washington, DC: The Pew

State of Recidivism: The Revolving Door of America’s Prisons

39

Endnotes

Charitable Trusts, December 2008), http://www.
pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/Policy%20
Framework.pdf.
16 The Continuing Fiscal Crisis in Corrections: Setting a
New Course (New York, NY: Vera Institute of Justice,
October 2010).
17 Ibid; Pew Center on the States, Ten Steps
Corrections Directors Can Take to Strengthen Performance
(Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts, May
2008).
18 Ibid; Pew Center on the States, One in 100: Behind
Bars in America 2008 (Washington, DC: The Pew
Charitable Trusts, February 2008); Pew Center on the
States, Prison Count 2010; Pew Center on the States,
South Carolina’s Public Safety Reform: Legislation Enacts
Research-based Strategies to Cut Prison Growth and Costs
(Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts, June
2010); Adrienne Austin, Criminal Justice Trends: Key
Legislative Changes in Sentencing Policy, 2001–2010 (New
York: Vera Institute of Justice, September 2010).
19 Many offender reentry programs are funded by the
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance,
through the Second Chance Act of 2007.
20 Don A. Andrews, et al., “Does Correctional Treatment
Work: A Clinically Relevant and Psychologically
Informed Meta-analysis,” Criminology 28 (1990): 369–
404.
21 Pew Center on the States, The Impact of Arizona’s
Probation Reforms (Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable
Trusts, March 2011).
22 Council of State Governments, Reentry Policy
Council, Report of the Re-Entry Policy Council: Charting the
Safe and Successful Return of Prisoners to the Community
(New York, NY: January 2005), http://reentrypolicy.org/;
http://www.nationalreentryresourcecenter.org/.
23 Amy L. Solomon, Jenny W.L. Osborne, Laura
Winterfield, et al., Putting Public Safety First: 13 Parole
Supervision Strategies to Enhance Reentry Outcomes
(Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 2008), http://
www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/411791_public_safety_
first.pdf.

40

Pew Center on the States

24 National Governors Association, Improving Prisoner
Reentry Through Strategic Policy Innovations, (Washington,
DC: National Governors Association, September 2005),
http://www.nga.org/Files/pdf/0509PRISONERREENTRY.
PDF.
25 Meghan Guevara and Enver Solomon, Implementing
Evidence-Based Policy and Practice in Community
Corrections, Second Edition, (Washington, DC: National
Institute of Corrections, October 2009), http://nicic.gov/
Library/024107.
26 Pew Center on the States, Policy Framework to
Strengthen Community Corrections.
27 Kansas SB 50 (1989).
28 Kansas SB 14 (2007).
29 Arizona SB 1476 (2008); California SB 678 (2009);
Illinois SB 1289 (2009); South Carolina SB 1154 (2010).
30 Arizona SB 1476 (2008); Pew Center on the States,
Getting in Sync: State-Local Fiscal Partnerships for Public
Safety (Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts, July
2008). See also the discussion of performance incentive
funding in Pew Center on the States, Policy Framework to
Strengthen Community Corrections.
31 National Research Council Committee on
Community Supervision and Desistance from Crime,
Parole, Desistance from Crime, and Community Integration
(Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2007);
Steve Aos, Marna Miller, and Elizabeth Drake, EvidenceBased Adult Corrections Programs: What Works and What
Does Not (Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute
for Public Policy, January 2006), http://www.wsipp.
wa.gov/rptfiles/06-01-1201.pdf; Peggy B. Burke and
Michael Tonry, Successful Transition and Reentry for Safer
Communities: A Call to Action for Parole (Silver Spring,
MD: Center for Effective Public Policy, 2006).
32 Solomon et al., Putting Public Safety First.
33 Joan Petersilia, When Prisoners Come Home:
Parole and Prisoner Reentry (New York, NY: Oxford
University Press, 2003); Michael Jacobson, Downsizing
Prisons (New York, NY: New York University Press,
2005); California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation, Expert Panel on Adult Offender

Endnotes

Reentry and Recidivism Reduction Programs, Report to
the California State Legislature: A Roadmap for Effective
Offender Programming in California (Sacramento,
CA: California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation, 2007); Jeremy Travis, “Reflections on
the Reentry Movement,” Federal Sentencing Reporter 20,
no.2 (December 2007), http://www.jjay.cuny.edu/extra/
president_articles/ReflectionsOntheReentryMovement.
pdf.

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

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

40 Austin et al., Unlocking America; Peggy B. Burke,
Adam Gelb, and Jake Horowitz, When Offenders Break
the Rules: Smart Responses to Parole and Probation
Violations (Washington, DC: Pew Center on the States,
2007); Reentry Policy Council, Report of the Re-Entry
Policy Council: Charting the Safe and Successful Return of
Prisoners to the Community (New York, NY: Council of
State Governments, 2005), http://www.reentrypolicy.org/
Report/About.

35 Don A. Andrews, “Enhancing Adherence to
Risk-Need-Responsivity: Making Quality a Matter
of Policy,” Criminology and Public Policy 5, no 3
(2006): 595–602; Aos, Miller, and Drake, EvidenceBased Adult Corrections Programs; James Austin,
“What Should We Expect from Parole?” Perspectives
30, no. 2 (2006): 46–53; Peggy B. Burke, Parole
Violations Revisited: A Handbook on Strengthening Parole
Practices for Public Safety and Successful Transition to
the Community (Washington, DC: National Institute
of Corrections, 2004); Burke and Tonry, Successful
Transition and Reentry for Safer Communities; Francis
T. Cullen and Paul Gendreau, “Assessing Correctional
Rehabilitation: Policy, Practice, and Prospects,” in
Criminal Justice 2000, Vol. 3: Policies, Processes, and
Decisions of the Criminal Justice System (Washington,
DC: National Institute of Justice, 2000); Jacobson,
Downsizing Prisons; Doris L. MacKenzie, What Works
in Corrections? (New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press, 2006); National Research Council, Parole,
Desistance from Crime, and Community Integration; Faye
S. Taxman, “Supervision: Exploring the Dimensions
of Effectiveness,” Federal Probation 66, no. 2 (2002):
14–27; Faye S. Taxman, “What Should We Expect
from Parole,” 38–45; Faye S. Taxman, “Reentry and
Supervision: One Is Impossible Without the Other,”
Corrections Today 69 no. 2 (2007): 98–105, http://
www.dpscs.state.md.us/publicinfo/publications/pdfs/
dpp_corrections_today.pdf.

37 New Hampshire SB 500, 2010.
38 Illinois SB 1289, 2009.
39 Aos, Miller, and Drake, Evidence-Based Adult
Corrections Programs.

41 Pew Center on the States, The Impact of Hawaii’s HOPE
Program on Drug Use, Crime and Recidivism, (Washington,
DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts, January 2010).
42 Petersilia, When Prisoners Come Home; Joan Petersilia,
“Employ Behavioral Contracting for ‘Earned Discharge’
Parole,” Criminology and Public Policy 6, no. 4 (2007):
807–814 (2007); Jacobson, Downsizing Prisons; California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Expert
Panel on Adult Offender Reentry and Recidivism
Reduction Programs, Report to the California State
Legislature: A Roadmap for Effective Offender Programming
in California (Sacramento, CA: California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2007); Jeremy
Travis, “Reflections on the Reentry Movement,” Federal
Sentencing Reporter 20, no. 2 (December 2007),
http://www.jjay.cuny.edu/extra/president_articles/
ReflectionsOntheReentryMovement.pdf.
43 Arizona SB 1476 (2008); South Carolina SB 1154
(2010).
44 Nevada AB 510 (2007); New Hampshire S 500
(2010).
45 Timothy A. Hughes and Doris J. Wilson, Reentry
Trends in the United States, (Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2002).

State of Recidivism: The Revolving Door of America’s Prisons

41

9 0 1 e S treet , N W , 1 0 th f l o o r • W a s h i n g t o n , D C 2 0 0 0 4
www . pewcenteronthestates . org