Some TDCJ treatment programs increase recidivism

April 2015:

A friend forwarded me a copy of this recidivism analysis from Texas Department of Criminal Justice prison rehabilitation programs, lamenting that "some of the TDCJ rehabilitation programs demonstrably make people worse."

Which ones? Four of nine programs showed participants' recidivism increased after two years in the free world, though after three years only two programs - specifically the Sex Offender Treatment Program and the Pre-Release Substance Abuse Program, the latter of which has consistently resulted in increased recidivism since the agency began studying it - displayed higher recidivism rates.

The two programs with worse outcomes after two years that came out slightly better after three were the Sex Offender Education Program and the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative.

The SAFP program is the TDCJ rehab program with the best results and was the only one to make a double-digit difference. ..Source.. by Grits for Breakfast

New Hampshire Sex Offender Recidivism Rates

5-2-15 New Hampshire:

It seems NH doesn't want the world to know the specific recidivism rates for sex offenders. The way the state compiles its recidivism rates is by groups: Violent, Property, Drug and Public Order. In addition their definition of recidivism is misleading "Recidivism rate refers to the percentage of a cohort, or sub-group, of offenders who are re-incarcerated in the state’s prison system as a result of a new sentence, a parole revocation or a probation revocation, within three years of their release." That making it impossible to get true recidivism rates by crime types.

With that in mind we looked at their 2014 report (2008 cohorts/releases) Appendix-B (very last page) and summing all sex related groups came cup with roughly 20% remembering that includes returns to prison for non sex crimes (Technical violations) as well.

They do have another page of all of their past recidivism reports on this site which folks may wish to review.

A Detailed Analysis of Sex Offender Recidivism in New York State

11-17-2007 New York:

New York State provides a wealth of studies on sex offender recidivism. While the thought of statistical studies causes the eyes of many to glaze over, any who are concerned that public policy be based on fact rather than mythology are grateful to have some hard data. It is extremely informative to look at the data gathered over the last 20 years.

The earliest study in this period was a New York Department of Corrections study (Profile and follow-up of sex offenders released in 1986, prepared by Canestrini, K., State of New York Department of Correctional Services) which followed 556 sex offenders released from state prisons in 1986. A total of 49% of these were returned to prison within the 9 year follow-up period. It should be noted that only 6% of these (34 out of 556) were returned to prison for a new sex crime. Most were returned for parole violations (27%) or for committing other crimes such as drug offenses. The study includes the clear statement: “These findings suggest that sex offenders are a diverse population and that when looking at sex offender recidivism it is important to distinguish total criminal activity from sexual reoffending.” (p. 34) Unfortunately, politicians and the media often do not do this. It should also be noted that this study was conducted before New York's Megan's Law was enacted.

New York regularly publishes 3 year follow-up studies of all those released from state prisons. Between 1985 and 2001 a total of 11,898 sex offenders were released. Only 253 of these (2.1%) were returned to prison for new sex crimes within three years of their release. (2001 Releases: Three Year Post Release Follow-up, State of New York Department of Correctional Services, p. 18) Of course, as in the above mentioned study, recidivism rates are higher if one counts those returned to prison for parole violations or for committing other crimes such as drug offenses. In terms of this overall rate of recidivism, it is important to note that sex offenders have a lower 3 year rate of recidivism (34%) than the general prison population (42%). Only 8% of sex offenders were returned to prison as a result of a conviction for a new crime. Most were returned for parole violations.

The latest sex offender recidivism study, Research Bulletin: Sex Offender Populations, Recidivism and Actuarial Assessment (New York State Division of Probation and Correctional Alternatives, May, 2007) is unique in that it also includes those sentenced to probation and county jails. Most recidivism studies (including those previously cited) examine only those who were sentenced to prison. The study examined 19,827 offenders on the New York State Sex Offender Registry on March 31, 2005. ..more.. by Rev. Dr. C. David Hess (RIP), New York State Representative of SOhopeful International

Sex offender treatment available, not always mandatory

12-4-2009 Ohio:

CLEVELAND – As the women found dead in and around the home of accused rapist/murderer Anthony Sowell’s home on Imperial Avenue have been identified and laid to rest by their loved ones, many people – particularly women – are left wondering if there are any more men capable of committing such crimes wandering the streets and, if so, how many?

To gain some insight, let’s consider a few already known facts in this case.

One, the accused has a history of rape as he served 15 years in prison after a victim escaped then reported him. Secondly, he was a registered sex offender.

Third, we know he received no treatment while in prison or upon release.

Now, when you examine the Cuyahoga County Sheriff’s Department registry of sex offenders, you’ll find that 2,406 sexual offenders ranging between the three-tiered types of offenses are listed in Cleveland alone. Even Beachwood has 10 while Pepper Pike has one.

Sex offenses include everything from soliciting for sex to rape and, of course, having sex with minors. Tier 1, the lowest, is anything other than a Tier II or Tier III offense.

However, the real questions become: Are there any organizations or support groups to assist men plagued with these kinds of issues as well as what kind of treatment do they receive while in prison? Also, is anyone looking at why people commit such crimes and how to prevent them from recurring?

Sexual crime studys shows repeats are low

Alaska Feb 2007:

STUDY: Supporters of tough new laws say convicts just get smarter.

A study of nearly 2,000 Alaska ex-cons challenges the widely held conviction that sex criminals are more likely to strike again than other lawbreakers when they get out of prison.

The study, by the Alaska Judicial Council, found that sex offenders are among the criminals least likely to get in trouble once they've done their time and been released.

The study says only 3 percent of sex offenders were convicted of another sex crime within three years of release from jail.



The most despised of criminals, sex offenders are widely held to be incurable and more likely to repeat their acts than those who commit other violent crimes. Backers of new laws that drastically increased jail time for sex criminals say they are skeptical of the report and stand by the tougher penalties.

Tennessee Recidivism Study: Strange definitions

Tennessee August 2007:

Recidivism study of offenders released in 2001 and followed for three years.

Two sections in report:

Sec 1) Covers just sex offenders released;
Sec 2) Covers all other offenders released.

The definition of "recidivism" causes figures to be inflated.

Recidivism: A return to criminal habits, including persons recommitted for a new offense or for a technical violation. Recidivism does not include persons who have been rearrested.

Recommit: To return to jail or DOC after being released, due to a new offense or technical offense.

Recommitment Offense: A new offense in which the offender is sent back into the criminal justice system after being released for a period of time.

Technical Violation: Failure to comply with the conditions of supervised release from incarceration.

---

Overview
Purpose of the Study:
The (TSAC) was one of eleven state SAC’s chosen to participate in a multi-state study. The study focused on all male sex offenders who were released from incarceration during calendar year 2001. The offenders were tracked for three years after their release to determine the recidivism rate of the group. A stratified sample based on primary incarceration offense of non-sex offenders released was also tracked for three years as a comparison. State and national criminal histories were generated for both groups of offenders. Additionally, data was obtained from the Tennessee Department of Correction’s Tennessee Offender Management Information System (TOMIS) to identify offenders recommitted for technical violations of supervised release.

Description of the Study:
A database was obtained from the Tennessee Department of Correction that contained all felony offenders released from Tennessee jails and prisons during the year of 2001. All sex offenders were studied and a stratified sample was generated of released offenders with other offenses. For both studies only male subjects were tracked. The offenders studied were released from prison or jail to parole, probation, community corrections, or released after the expiration of their sentence. The study did not include offenders who were initially sentenced to community correction or probation without serving a period of incarceration.

Recidivism is defined as the return to criminal habits, including recommitment for new offenses or a technical violation of supervised release. To determine the rate of recidivism, the records of 557 Sex Offenders were examined for a three year period following the date of their release from custody. A stratified sample of 559 male felons based on proportion of the offense group within all releases was studied for comparison purposes.

The study includes information on offenders who were rearrested and recommitted as well as those who had no further known contact with the criminal justice system. For the purpose of this study "recommitted" was defined as offenders who were committed for a new conviction or recommitted as a result of a technical violation of the rules of their supervision within three years of their release from incarceration. “Rearrested” was defined as offenders who were arrested for a new offense, but were not recommitted within three years following the date of their release. Recommitment and rearrest information was obtained from the Tennessee Offender Management Information System (TOMIS) of the Tennessee Department of Correction and from criminal history information obtained from the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) and the Tennessee Criminal History System (TCHS). The recommitment and rearrest may have occurred in Tennessee or in any other jurisdiction and are noted if the arrest occurred outside Tennessee.


For the purpose of this study, technical violations were counted for those offenders who did not commit a new offense and were only committed for a technical violation of supervision the three year period. If the offender returned on a technical violation because of a new offense conviction the new sentence would have been counted and the technical violation would have been disregarded.


Findings:
Of the 557 Sex Offenders released in 2001:

The study included all males with the following racial breakout: 318 - White, 188-Black

The following released offenders were excluded from the study: 12 females; one offender released to federal detainer before being deported; 9 offenders who died of natural causes; 1 who was a homicide victim; 15 offenders released to detainer; and 13 offenders released to Court / Administrative Discharge. The remaining 506 offenders were tracked for three years.

223 Offenders (44.1%) had no known contact with the criminal justice system.

141 (27.9%) Offenders were arrested one time but were not readmitted in the TDOC prison system.

142 (28.1%) Offenders were recommitted into the TDOC prison system. The most frequent recommitment type was Crimes Against Society violations with 41 offenses (28.9%).

Arrest offense types that were similar to the offense resulting in the original incarceration and release in 2001 were ranked as similar, lesser or higher. 20 offenses were similar, 4 were lesser and 4 were higher.

Average number of days between release and readmission to the TDOC prison system was 460 days.

Average age at readmission was 38.

Average number of offenses committed by those readmitted was 2.8.

Average number of days between release date and arrest date was 375 days.

Average age of single arrest category was 32.
22 (7.8%) offenders were rearrested and 31 (11.0%) recommitted between zero and six months of their release.

50 (17.7%) offenders were rearrested and 27 (9.5%) recommitted between six months and one year of their release.

46 (16.3%) offenders were rearrested and 48 (17.0%) recommitted between one and two years of their release.

24 (8.5%) offenders were rearrested and 35 (12.4%) recommitted between two and three years of their release.

Sex offenders with the highest rearrest rates were statutory rapists (30.7%), offenders who committed sexual battery (17.9%) and rapists (15.0%).

Sex offenders with the lowest rearrest rate were those in prison for attempted rape of a child (0.0%), criminal exposure to HIV (0.0%), criminal sexual conduct–1st degree (0.0%) and incest (0.0%).

Within 3 years, 3.5% of released rapists were rearrested for another rape, and 4.7% of released statutory rapists were rearrested for another statutory rape.

A total of 18 sex offenders crossed state lines and were either rearrested or recommitted. Of that number, 16 were arrested with no incarceration while 2 were incarcerated in Georgia. Five (5) bordering states showed arrests of Tennessee sex offenders with Oregon being the greatest distance traveled. The incarceration offenses in Georgia were failure to register as a sex offender and indecent exposure.

Race: whites were more likely than blacks to be –
o Recommitted (51.4% verses 48.5%)
o Rearrested without incarceration (55.3% verses 44.7%)
o Neither recommitted or arrested (70.1% verses 29.5%)

Offenders released due to death, detainer and administrative / court release were noted in the appendix but were not included in the analysis. ..more.. by TBI Crime Statistics Unit

Kansas Recidivism

..Source..

A Model of Static and Dynamic Sex Offender Risk Assessment

October 2011:

Abstract:
The purpose of the present study was to test models of combining static and dynamic risk measures that might predict sexual recidivism among adult male sex offenders better than any one type of measure alone. Study participants were 759 adult male sex offenders under correctional supervision in Vermont who were enrolled in community sex offender treatment between 2001 and 2007.

These offenders were assessed once using static measures (Static-99R, Static-2002R and VASOR) based on participants’ history at the date of placement in the community. A 22-item dynamic risk measure (SOTNPS) was used multiple times to assess participants, shortly after their entry into community treatment and approximately every six months thereafter. Analyses of SOTNPS scores resulted in the development of a new 16-item dynamic risk measure, the Sex Offender Treatment Intervention and Progress Scale (SOTIPS).

At fixed one- and three-year follow-up periods from participants’ initial, second, and third dynamic risk assessments, the SOTIPS and Static-99R, the static risk measure selected for further analysis in the present study, each independently showed moderate ability to rank order risk for sexual, violent, and any criminal recidivism and return to prison.

A logistic regression model that combined SOTIPS and Static-99R consistently predicted recidivism and outperformed either instrument alone when both instruments had similar predictive power. Participants who demonstrated treatment progress, as reflected by reductions in SOTIPS scores, showed lower rates of recidivism than those who did not. ..For the remainder of this research: by Robert J. McGrath, Michael P. Lasher, and Georgia F. Cumming, Vermont Department of Corrections (Grant Award Number: 2008-DD-BX-0013 National Institute of Justice)

---

...

California release new recidivism numbers

11-3-2010 California:

New recidivism figures: 2010 Adult Institutions Outcome Evaluation Report ", but they are not easy to decipher!

Normally we would just look at a chart and know what the recidivism numbers are, however, California has revised their record-keeping system and it requires that we understand certain words and phrases, and know how to interpret the charts when viewing them.

The important terms are: Parole Violation (LAW); Parole Violation (TECHNICAL); Registered Sex Offender; Re-Release; and Term, the definitions are all on this page.

Next, the graphic on the right here is very helpful to understanding a few of the terms: Since their new system is based on "Return to Prison" numbers, that means, numbers include "Parole Violations (Technical) and for sex offenders the picture shows 86% for Technical violations. So when our concerns are "new crimes" we need to recognize where the report is overstated with technical violations.

The next item, new in their new system, is, if someone is incarcerated for "Failure to Register" they consider that a "new sex offense." See note 11 on the very bottom of this page. Accordingly, in the picture it shows 5% for new sex crimes (recidivism), that number is overstated by something, unfortunately we have no way of knowing how much.

Throughout the report they speak of "Flagged Sex Offenders" and "Nonflagged Felons" where "Flagged" means the folks required to register as a sex offender. Unless I've missed it, I haven't see a Technical Violation figure for "Nonflagged Felons."

Next to confuse folks is "Re-Release," say someone is convicted of a sex offense and is paroled, then -while on parole- gets convicted of a nonsex offense and is returned to prison. When they are again paroled (Still serving a sentence for the sex crime) they are put into the Re-Release numbers. Looking at the picture we see some sex offenders, when released (8.9%), go on to commit other types of offenses; they will be re-released at some point. A review of Table-10 makes this easier to see. Also note how they break down sex offenses into six types of offenses, and watch the "Other Sex" category because it includes "Failure to Register" crimes, which truthfully are not sex offenses.

The best chart which seems to get around all their confusion is found at the very end of their report, shown below, that only covers registered sex offenders. One final point, the percentages shown below virtually mirror the Department of Justice study done in 1994, and suggest that public sex offender registries have little or no effect on recidivism. Millions of dollars could be saved, excepting that, politicians are afraid to lose their jobs if they admit error.

On a closing note, California claims to be broke, well if 86% of the imprisoned sex offenders are sent back to prison -because of technical parole violations (I'm assuming non sex offenders numbers are similar)-, that has got to cost California a pretty penny. Maybe the real study necessary is about "Technical Violations." Are those folks really violating bad enough to warrant going back to prison, or have they just ticked someone off, or something inbetween? That should be the next study.

For now, have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate

Residential Proximity to Schools and Daycares: An Empirical Analysis of Sex Offense Recidivism

May 2010:

Abstract:
Residential restrictions for sex offenders have become increasingly popular, despite the lack of empirical data suggesting that offenders’ proximity to schools or daycares contributes to recidivism. Using a matched sample of recidivists and nonrecidivists from Florida (n = 330) for the period from 2004 through 2006, the authors investigated whether sex offenders who lived closer to schools or daycares were more likely to reoffend sexually against children than those who lived farther away.

No significant differences were found between the distances that recidivists and nonrecidivists lived from schools and daycares. There was no significant relationship between reoffending and proximity to schools or daycares. The results indicate that proximity to schools and daycares, with other risk factors being comparable, does not appear to contribute to sexual recidivism. These data do not support the widespread enactment of residential restrictions for sexual offenders.

For the remainder of this paper: by Paul A. Zandbergen, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, zandberg@unm.edu -AND- Jill S. Levenson, Lynn University, Boca Raton, Florida -AND- Timothy C. Hart, University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Denying parole at first eligibility: How much public safety does it actually buy?

August 2009:

A study of prisoner release and recidivism in Michigan

Executive Summary

Widely-held assumptions about incarceration and parole are contradicted by Michigan data and national research.

Assumption: Since Michigan’s overall rate of sending convicted felons to prison is below thenational average, Michigan does not incarcerate enough people.

Fact: Michigan’s overall prison commitment rate is below the national average because the state imprisons fewer drug and other nonassaultive offenders. Its commitment rate for assaultive and sex offenders is very high and, because it keeps those offenders incarcerated for a long time, Michigan’s average length of stay in prison is much higher than the national average.

Assumption: Longer prison sentences keep the public safer.

Fact: Increased length of stay does not reduce recidivism and may actually increase it.

Assumption: Half of all released prisoners commit new crimes and return to prison.

Fact: The majority of former prisoners do not return within four years for any reason, even without the support services now provided through reentry programming. Of those released for the first time from 1986-99, whether paroled or discharged on the maximum, 63% did not return at all; fewer than 18% were returned with new sentences for new crimes.

Assumption: Assaultive and sex offenders present a high risk to public safety.

Fact: People who commit assaultive or sex offenses are much less likely to reoffend than those who commit financially-motivated crimes. Homicide and sex offenders rarely commit new crimes against persons. Characterizing these offenders as “high risk” confuses the harm from their past crimes with the likelihood they will commit new ones.

Assumption: Parole is a form of “early release” that was unintended and unanticipated by the sentencing court.

Fact: In Michigan, judges set the minimum sentence according to legislative guidelines that determine how much punishment is appropriate for the offense and the offender. The minimum is often agreed to by the prosecutor during plea negotiations. While the parole board can deny release until the prisoner has served the maximum sentence, it cannot grant release until the person has served the minimum. Parole at the first eligibility date indicates the board has found no reason, based on current information, to extend incarceration beyond what was imposed by the sentencing court.

Assumption: Decisions to deny parole are based on objective assessments of the risk of reoffending.

Fact: Parole has routinely been denied based on the nature of the offense to people who have served their judicially imposed minimum punishment and posed a low risk of reoffending.

Assumption: People who are repeatedly denied parole have terrible institutional records.

Fact: While poor behavior in prison reduces the likelihood of parole for everyone, assaultive and sex offenders are less able to earn release through good conduct. Many of them “max out” despite having no serious history of institutional misconduct.

Assumption: If parole decisions were made “correctly” and more prisoners were required to serve their maximum sentences, all crime by parolees would be prevented.

Fact: The total prevention of new crimes by parolees would require the ongoing incarceration of tens of thousands of people who would not, in fact, commit a new offense if released. The fiscal cost would be astronomical and, because most crimes are not committed by parolees, the impact on overall crime rates would be minimal.

Assumption: Denying parole for an extra year or two keeps the public substantially safer.

Fact: If, from 1986-99, everyone denied parole for up to two years had been released when first eligible, 2,300 fewer beds per year would have been needed but returns with new sentences would have increased only 1.7%.

Purpose of the Research

The Citizens Alliance on Prisons and Public Spending examined 76,721 cases of Michigan prisoners sentenced to indeterminate terms after 1981 and released for the first time from 1986 through 1999. The primary goal was to answer the following questions:

Does continuing to incarcerate people who have served their minimum sentences
actually improve public safety and, if so, to what extent and at what cost?

Specifically, does denying parole at the minimum only to release a person a year or two thereafter have a substantial impact on re-offense rates?

The analysis also shed light on a number of other important questions regarding the nature and cost-effectiveness of parole decision making. In particular, because offense groups were analyzed separately, the impact of the nature of the crime on both release decisions and actual recidivism could be identified.

For the remainder of this research: by Citizens Alliance on Prisons and Public Spending (CAPPS)


Reviewing this was eye opening and two charts which caught my attention, they follow:

Bureau of Justice - Recidivism

1994 through 1997:

Below are the figures quoted by the Department of Justice (DOJ) on their "Recidivism Page," however, there are considerable points about those figures which the DOJ has left out. Accordingly, I will point out those facts below as (Notes by eAdvocate).

The 9,691 sex offenders were released from State prisons in these 15 States: Arizona, Maryland, North Carolina, California, Michigan, Ohio, Delaware, Minnesota, Oregon, Florida, New Jersey, Texas, Illinois, New York, and Virginia.

The DOJ is quoting from is: Recidivism of SexOffenders Released from Prison in 1994 (NCJ 198281) (PDF), published November 2003, By Patrick A. Langan, Ph.D., Erica L. Schmitt, and Matthew R. Durose, Statisticians, Bureau of Justice Statistics

DOJ recidivism page Shows:


Recidivism: (All types of crimes)

Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 States in 1994 (all types of offenders), an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new crime.

The 272,111 offenders discharged in 1994 accounted for nearly 4,877,000 arrest charges over their recorded careers.

Within 3 years of release, 2.5% of released rapists were rearrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for a new homicide.

Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense –– 43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders.

Sex offenders were about four times more likely than non-sex offenders to be arrested for another sex crime after their discharge from prison –– 5.3 percent of sex offenders versus 1.3 percent of non-sex offenders.

(Note, that following release 1.3% of non-sex offenders committed a sex offense [not something they had done before].

Now, sometimes looking at percentages is misleading, so, translating these percentages to real numbers: 5.3% is 517 sex offenders -and- 1.3% is 3,328 non-sex offenders. Looking close shows us that non-sex offenders committed 3,328 sex crimes while sex offenders committed 517 sex crimes.

That means, former non-sex offenders are more dangerous to the community and committed 6 sex crimes to every one committed by a former sex offender. You might want to review that a few times to get over the shock, lawmakers ignore this fact.)

Sex offenders

On a given day in 1994 there were approximately 234,000 offenders convicted of rape or sexual assault under the care, custody, or control of corrections agencies; nearly 60% of these sex offenders are under conditional supervision in the community.

The median age of the victims of imprisoned sexual assaulters was less than 13 years old; the median age of rape victims was about 22 years.

An estimated 24% of those serving time for rape and 19% of those serving time for sexual assault had been on probation or parole (not necessarily for a previous sex crime) at the time of the offense for which they were in State prison in 1991.

Of the 9,691 male sex offenders released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, 5.3% were rearrested for a new sex crime within 3 years of release. (5.3% over 3 years, however, that equates to a annual rate of 1.76%. Further, of the 5.3% of those arrested, 3.5% were actually convicted.)

Of released sex offenders who allegedly committed another sex crime, 40% perpetrated the new offense within a year or less from their prison discharge. ( This is a common fact of all types of crime. The first year following release is the hardest in readjusting to society, and those having troubles readjusting often resort to their old tactics: recidivism.)


Child victimizers

Approximately 4,300 child molesters were released from prisons in 15 States in 1994. An estimated 3.3% of these 4,300 were rearrested for another sex crime against a child within 3 years of release from prison. ( Again, percentages can be misleading. [ 4,300 was actually 4,295 X 3.3% = 141 new sex crimes]. Now, missing is, some non-sex offenders released committed sex crimes against a child 0.4% [262,420 X .4% = 1,042 new sex crimes]. Again, non-sex offenders are more dangerous to the community and lawmakers ignore this fact.)

Among child molesters released from prison in 1994, 60% had been in prison for molesting a child 13 years old or younger.

Offenders who had victimized a child were on average 5 years older than the violent offenders who had committed their crimes against adults. Nearly 25% of child victimizers were age 40 or older, but about 10% of the inmates with adult victims fell in that age range.

eAdvocate Note: Here are a few charts created from that study which show the facts clearly. These charts, and more, were on my old Yahoo website, but Yahoo closed those FREE sites. When they did "oocities" preserved the information, links to the charts there are below:

A) Recidivism Rates: All released sex offenders -vs- non-sex offenders

B) Recidivism Rates: Showing offenders who re-offended against a child!

C) Department of Justice: Victim/Offender Relationship Statistics

====== Copyright eAdvocate (All Right Reserved) ======

IN- Recidivism Rates Compared, 2005 – 2007

2008 Indiana:

Abstract:
Recidivism Rates Compared, 2005 – 2007, is the first comprehensive report published by the Indiana Department of Correction that details the recidivism rates of offenders released from incarceration in Indiana. This report presents recidivism rates for offenders released from the custody of the Indiana Department of Correction for the time period 2002 through 2004. This report defines recidivism as a return to incarceration in the Indiana Department of Correction within three years of the offenders release date. For example, offenders released in calendar year 2004, who returned to prison for either a new conviction or technical violation during 2004, 2005, 2006, or 2007, but within three years of release, would be counted in the recidivism rate for 2007.

Across the United States, definitions of recidivism vary, making comparisons on a state or national level difficult to ascertain. There has been no national standard created that would unify the definition of recidivism throughout. Therefore, the Indiana Department of Correction has relied on its own definition, further detailed on page five, which happens to be in line with the definition used by the Association of State Correctional Administrators.

Over time, the Research and Planning Division of the Indiana Department of Correction will continue to track recidivism rates for offenders released each year and subsequently produce and publish a report that details the results of each recidivism study.

Methodology:
The Indiana Department of Correction defines Recidivism as an offender’s return to incarceration within three (3) years of their release date from a state correctional institution.

An offender is included in this study when they are released via one of the following avenues: Community Transition Program (CTP), Probation, Parole, or Discharged.

Once released, an offender is verified as a Recidivist if they return to the institutional custody of the Indiana Department of Correction for a new conviction or a technical violation of post-incarceration supervision. In instances where offenders have multiple releases within the same year, the earliest release date is used to determine the offender’s recidivism status. Therefore, the statistics listed throughout this report reflect the number of unique releases per year.

Findings:
In 2007, recidivism rates decreased for the second consecutive year, resulting in 37.8% of offenders being re-committed to the Indiana Department of Correction (IDOC) within 3 years of their release date. Rates for 2005 and 2006 were 39.2% and 38.6% respectively. Male offenders had a higher recidivism rate when compared to female offenders across all three years. 38.6% of male offenders released in 2004 returned to IDOC, versus 32.6% of female releases. On average throughout all 3 years, 46% of African American offenders returned to the Department of Correction, a higher rate than any other race.

Nearly 50% of all offenders released in 2002, 2003, or 2004 for a Weapons related crime as their most serious offense, returned to incarceration within three years of release. Offenders released in 2002, 2003, or 2004 with a Class C Felony as their most serious offense were most likely to return to incarceration within three years of release.

Offenders who recidivate are returned to IDOC for the commission of a new crime at a slightly higher rate than those returned for a technical violation of post-release supervision.

Overall, offenders identified as a sex offender who were released in 2002, 2003, or 2004, returned to IDOC at a higher rate than all other offenders.

While technically a true statement, certain facts not taken into consideration make this VERY MISLEADING:

A) Recidivism is defined as including "technical violations" which are not crimes but mere violations of simple rules such as drinking, failure to report when required, walking where one is not allowed (sex offenders), and other similiar technical factors;

B) Sex offenders have a higher rate of technical violations (see page-21) than any other crime type. This is due to all the new community oriented rules placed on all sex offenders whether they are applicable to that person or not.

Finally, given the 75% technical violation rate, and subtracting that, sex offenders have the lowest rate of recidivism next to murderers. Nothing like trying to confuse the public which is common with DOC's nationally.

For the rest of this report: Prepared by: Aaron Garner, Research Analyst, IDOC

AK- Criminal Recidivism in Alaska

Study the highlighting below, does it make sense?

January 2007

Executive Summary

How well does Alaska’s criminal justice system work to protect the public? What works best? What needs improvement? Can less costly alternatives more effectively promote public safety? Knowing what happens after offenders serve their sentences can help answer these questions.

This report by the Judicial Council is the first general study of recidivism in Alaska. It describes the percentages of offenders who were re-arrested, had new court cases filed, were re-convicted, or remanded to custody for new offenses or for probation or parole violations. The report shows how soon after release these events occurred, and what factors were most closely related to an increased chance that offenders would be involved again in the criminal justice system. The Alaska Department of Health and Social Services funded the report.

The Council followed 1,934 offenders, all of whom were charged with at least one felony in 1999 and convicted. Of those, 59% were convicted of a felony, and 41% of a misdemeanor.

-How can both statements be true? This is a study done by professionals employed by the state of Alaska.

This report focuses on the 1,798 offenders who had been out of custody for at least three years after they had served their sentence. The Council found that within three years after release from their sentence on the 1999 offense:

• 66% of all offenders in the sample had been re-incarcerated at least once, for a new offense or a probation or parole violation.

• 59% were arrested at least once for a new offense.

Recidivism rates during the three-year period by demographic factors and type of offense (see Parts 3 and 6)

• The likelihood that an offender would be re-arrested was affected by the type of offense for which the offender was convicted in 1999: 67% of Property offenders were re-arrested, as compared to 61% of Driving offenders, 60% of Violent offenders, 52% of Drug offenders, and 39% of Sexual offenders.

• The factors most closely related to increased recidivism were the offender’s age, and indigent status (indigent offenders were those who qualified for public attorney representation in 1999).

• An offender’s ethnicity (if Native), prior criminal history, alcohol, drug and mental health problems were other factors that increased the chance of re-arrest.

Types and seriousness of new convictions (see Part 4)

• Youthful offenders, males and those previously convicted of a Violent offense were more likely to commit a new offense at a more serious level than their 1999 offense.

• Most offenders who were convicted of a new offense were convicted of an offense of the same or lesser seriousness level than their 1999 conviction. Offenders with alcohol or drug problems in 1999 were less likely than others to be convicted of a more serious offense. An offender’s indigency or mental health problems were not related to conviction on a more serious offense.

• Sexual offenders were the least likely to commit the same offense again; those previously convicted of Driving offenses were the most likely to commit the same offense again.

Timing of recidivism (see Part 5)

• Offenders were arrested for most of their new offenses within the first year after release, particularly during the first six months after release.


Part 1
Measures of Recidivism

The Council looked at four measures of recidivism for offenders charged with a felony filed in calendar 1999, and convicted of a felony or misdemeanor.1 They were:2

• Re-arrests of the offender (using Department of Public Safety data).

• New court cases filed against the offender (using data from Alaska Court System).

• Re-convictions of the offender (using Department of Public Safety data).
• Remands to incarceration of the offender, which included remands for new arrests, and for probation and parole violations (using Department of Corrections data).3

These sources chosen for data are standard sources of information about criminal justice events for specific offenders.4 Similar databases are used by all fifty states to report information and conduct statistical analyses. Therefore, the Council’s data on recidivism can be compared more easily to data from other jurisdictions.

As in other jurisdictions, reports such as this one rely on criminal justice record repositories that probably understate the actual level of re-arrests and re-convictions.5 Although many recidivism reports use only one or two of these measures, the Council has chosen to use all four. Three of the four: re-arrest, new cases filed, and remands to custody do not reflect proven criminal behavior.

Remands may reflect violations of conditions of probation or parole (for example, no drinking) that are not criminal behavior, or they may be a remand because the offender was arrested for a new offense.6 The fourth measure, new convictions, shows only criminal behavior that has been proven in court, whether by a plea from the defendant or conviction after trial. Re-arrests, new cases filed, and remands are useful to understand the frequency with which the criminal justice system had new contacts with offenders. ..more.. by Alaska Judicial Council