Recidivism Ch 4 (2024)

Chapter Four

Recidivism Among Connecticut Felons

A main purpose of the program review committeestudy was to provide for the first time a comprehensive picture of recidivismrates among Connecticut felons. As previously stated, the analysis focused onfive questions -- highlighted below -- to accomplish this task. Answers to each,based on the committee's research are also summarized below. Then the completedata analysis of the two cohort groups -- inmates and probationers -- ispresented.

To what extent were Connecticutfelons arrested for new criminal activity, convicted of those offenses, andsentenced to either imprisonment or other supervision sanctions?

• Within three years of discharge from prison, most (70 percent) felony inmates were rearrested at least once for a new crime.
• Almost half of the discharged inmates were reconvicted of a new crime.
• About one-quarter of the inmate group was reincarcerated and an additional third sentenced to another sanction as a result of a new crime.
• Within three years of being sentenced to probation for a felony conviction, more than half (58 percent) of probationers were rearrested at least once for a new crime.
• One-third of the probationers were reconvicted of a new crime.
• Very few probationers were sent to prison as a result of a new crime (11 percent), but 21 percent were sentenced to another community supervision sanction.

How did recidivism rates differamong released inmates and probationers?

• Felony inmates had significantly higher rates of rearrest, reconviction, and reincarceration than felony probationers.
• During the three-year release threshold, inmates were rearrested more often than probationers -- inmates had on average three rearrests compared to two rearrests among the probations.
• The highest recidivism rates were among young, male, African American offenders in both groups.
• Inmates and probationers with extensive prior criminal histories were more likely to be rearrested than offenders with less serious criminal histories.
• Inmates and probationers with prior violation of probation offenses had significantly higher rates of rearrest than other offenders.
• In general, there was no consistent pattern of rearrest for a new drug crime among the drug offenders in the inmate cohort group.
• Probationers originally sentenced for a felony drug offense were more likely to be rearrested for the same crime than other types of offenders.
• Most offenders who recidivated were not reincarcerated for long periods of time and, in fact, many were not sent to prison.
• More than half of the rearrests do not result in reconviction; they are ultimately dismissed by the court, the offender found not guilty, or the charges combined into another criminal case against the offender.

How did recidivism rates vary amongdifferent categories of offenders?

• Males had significantly higher recidivism rates than females.
• Young offenders were more likely to reoffend than older inmates.
• Minority offenders were more likely to be rearrested than Caucasian offenders.
• Property offenders reoffended more often and were more likely to recommit the same type of crime than violent offenders.
• Inmates released from prison to some form of community supervision such as parole or transitional supervision had a significantly lower rate of rearrest than inmates who returned to their communities under no supervision.

What types of new offenses didrepeat offenders commit?

• In general, repeat offenders in both cohort groups committed a variety of new felony and misdemeanor crimes and did not "specialize" in one type of crime.
• Overall, most of the repeat criminal activity among both cohort groups was nonviolent and less serious felonies and misdemeanor property crimes, drug sale and possession offenses, and crimes such as disorderly conduct, breach of peace, and motor vehicle infractions.
• Among inmates and probationers, property and drug offenders were more likely to recommit those same types of offenses.
• Violent inmates were the least likely offenders to recommit another violent crime.
• A previous drug conviction was not a strong predictor of rearrest for a new drug sale or possession crime.

Was recidivism related to anoffender's criminal history, demographics, program participation, or otherfactors?

• The patterns and trends in repeat criminal activity among Connecticut felons were consistent with national research.
• An offender's age, race, and gender were significant predictors of repeat criminal activity among the inmate and probationer samples.
• Young, male, African American, property offenders were the most likely to recidivate.
• The type of primary offense and length of primary sentence were strong predictors of rearrest among the inmate cohort group.
• Offenders with a chronic or serious substance abuse problem were significantly more likely to be rearrested, but most were not rearrested for a new drug crime.
• Participation in prison or community-based rehabilitation, treatment, and service programs did not significantly reduce the rate of recidivism rates among either cohort group.

Detailed Recidivism Analysis

Presented below is the detailed analysis of therates of recidivism among members of both cohort groups. The analysis of theinmate sample is presented followed by the probationer sample. The followingsection includes detailed recidivism analyses of:

• overall rates of rearrest, reconviction, and reincarceration;
• rates by specific offender demographic or characteristic;
• patterns of repeat criminal activity;
• time at risk in the community;
• reconviction and sentencing; and
• program participation by the offenders.

Inmate Cohort Group

The inmate rate of recidivism is presented asthe percentage of the total of discharged inmates who were rearrested,reconvicted, and reincarcerated during the three-year release threshold. Asexpected, the rearrest rate exceeds the reconviction rates because not allarrested offenders are prosecuted and convicted and, due to the court's lag timein disposing of cases, not all convictions occurred within the selectedfollow-up period. Likewise, reconviction rates are greater than reincarcerationrates because not all convicted offenders are sent to prison. Some are sentencedto probation, fined, or diverted into alternative sanction programs.

Overallrates of recidivism. As shown in Figure IV-l, 69 percent (2,745) of the4,006 inmates released from prison in 1997 were rearrested at least once for anew felony or misdemeanor crime, and 46 percent (1,828) were subsequentlyreconvicted within the three-year release threshold. Twenty-two percent (889)were reincarcerated as a result of that reconviction, and 18 percent received anonprison sentence of probation supervision, an alternative sanction, or a fine.

Ratebased on primary offense category and crime type. This analysis is based onthe inmate's primary offense, which is defined as the crime for which aninmate received the prison term for which he or she discharged in 1997. FigureIV-2 shows the recidivism rates for inmates based on five major crimecategories, which were discussed on page 15 of this report. (There were noinmates in the sample with a primary offense for a motor vehicle crime.)

As shown, inmates who were in prison for aproperty offense (74 percent) or a violation of probation (75 percent) were themost likely to be rearrested. These offenders also had the highest reconvictionand reincarceration rates. More than half were reconvicted for a new crime, andas a result almost 30 percent were sent back to prison.

Violent offenders had the lowest rate ofrearrest (61 percent), although more than half was rearrested. Overall, inmateswhose primary offense was the possession of a weapon, risk of injury to a minor,perjury, and conspiracy to commit a crime -- categorized as other crimes -- hadthe lowest reconviction (about 39 percent) and reincarceration rates (17percent).

The recidivism rate among inmates in Connecticutby specific types of primary offense are consistent with national research. Asshown in Table IV-1, inmates with a prior conviction for burglary, larceny, drugpossession, weapon possession, or violation of probation were more likely to berearrested and reconvicted after being released from prison. Aboutthree-quarters within each crime type were rearrested and almost half werereconvicted within the three-year release threshold. Among all of the crimetypes, these offenders were also among those with the highest rates ofreincarceration -- about 25 percent were returned to prison.

Interestingly, inmates who committed certainviolent crimes -- homicide, sexual assault, kidnapping, and arson -- had thelowest rearrest and reconviction rates. This may be attributed to more intensiveand restrictive community supervision requirements as they discharge fromprison, or these inmates may be older at discharge as a result of serving longsentences and, therefore, less likely to recidivate. Whatever the reasons, lessthan 40 percent of inmates convicted of homicide and sexual assault wererearrested. About 42 percent of those with a

kidnapping conviction and 48 percent of thoseconvicted of arson were rearrested. As a group, these inmates had less than a 30percent reconviction rate. However, their rate of reincarceration, whileslightly lower than offenders convicted of robbery, burglary, larceny, and drugoffenses, was still consistent with the overall rate for the inmate sample.Inmates who committed arson had the lowest rate (15 percent) of reincarceration.

Among violent offenders, inmates who committedrobbery and assault had the highest rates of recidivism. Over 70 percent of themwere rearrested within three years after discharge from prison, half weresubsequently reconvicted, and 25 percent were sent back to prison. About 65percent of those who committed an assault were rearrested, 42 percent werereconvicted, and 21 percent eventually reincarcerated.

Rate based on primary discharge type. Theprimary discharge is defined as the specific type of release from prisonin 1997. As previously stated in Chapter Three, inmates may be released fromprison in several ways, including: serving their complete prison term (called"maxing out"); being paroled; or transitioning back to the communityunder a number of DOC early release programs (e.g., transitional supervision,halfway house placement, and re-entry furlough). Parole and transitionalsupervision have a community supervision component for a specific period of timeprior to the termination of the sentence whereas the others do not. The analysisbelow examines the recidivism rates based on the manner in which the inmateswere discharged from prison.

Asshown in Figure IV-3, the overall rates for each type of discharge are similar,but there are some notable variations. Inmates who were released early fromprison on parole or transitional supervision were statistically less likely⁹to be rearrested than those who "maxed out" or were released by DOC toa halfway house or on a re-entry furlough. This may be attributed to thecommunity supervision component of parole and transitional supervision ratherthan an inmate's predisposition to commit another crime. Inmates undersupervision may have their parole or TS release revoked for a technicalviolation and be returned to prison prior to or in lieu of a new arrest.However, it may also indicate that some form of supervision and/or surveillancedecreases the likelihood of a new criminal activity.

Rate based on primary sentence. Aninmate's primary sentence is the prison term imposed by the court for theoriginal primary conviction, and it is the sentence from which the inmatedischarged in 1997. The data showed inmates with longer court-imposed prisonsentences were less likely to be rearrested after being released from prison.These inmates were, on average, older than other inmates at discharge and,therefore, likely to be "aging out" of their criminal careers. Inaddition, because of their longer sentences they were more likely to be undersome form of community supervision (e.g., parole or probation) upon release. Thedata indicated this has a positive impact on reducing the rate of rearrest.

Totalcriminal activity. An offender who is arrested may be charged with more thanone crime. For the purposes of this study, the first three charges -- or crimes-- per arrest were examined to provide a snapshot of the total criminal activityof inmates and probationers. Because of this approach, the total number ofcrimes will be greater than the number of offenders.

Within the three-year release window, 2,745inmates were rearrested at least once. Based on the total charges for the firstrearrest, the inmates accounted for 5,573 new crimes. This analysis includesboth felonies and misdemeanors.

As shown in Figure IV-4, more than half (68percent) of the crimes were for the sale or possession of drugs, motor vehicleinfractions, a violation of probation, and other crimes such as weaponpossession, risk of injury to a minor, stalking, harassment, disorderly conduct,prostitution, and bribery. Only 13 percent of the crimes were violent (i.e.,homicide, sexual assault, assault, and robbery) and 19 percent were propertyoffenses such as larceny, burglary, and forgery. When the offenses for multiplerearrests were examined, this pattern was similar.

Rateby demographics. The relationship between recidivism rates and certainoffender demographic characteristics such as age, gender, and race was analyzed.Figure IV-5 illustrates the rearrest, reconviction, and reincarceration ratesamong inmates by age group. As shown, the recidivism rate for all three measureswas significantly higher for younger inmates. About 80 percent of inmatesbetween the ages of 16 and 21 were rearrested, more than half were reconvicted,and almost 30 percent reincarcerated for a new crime.

Inmates over 40 were less likely to recidivate,which supports conclusions reached in other studies that older offenders are notrearrested because they "age out" of their criminal career.

Figure IV-6 shows male inmates had a higherrearrest rate than females. However, males and females had similar rates ofreconviction and reimprisonment.

Measuringrecidivism by the racial group, the data show offenders in a minority group hadhigher rates of rearrest, reconviction, and reincarceration than Caucasianinmates. As shown in Figure IV-7, African American and Hispanics inmates weresignificantly more likely to be rearrested. (American Indian, Asian, and otherracial groups were not included in the analysis because they represent less than1 percent of the total inmate sample.) However, the differences for thereconviction rates are not statistically significant.

When the race and age at discharge distributionswere analyzed together, an inmate's age and race were strong predictors ofrecidivism. Young, minority inmates were more likely to be rearrested. FigureIV-8 shows African American and Hispanic inmates between the ages of 16 and 21years were twice as likely as Caucasians of the same age to be rearrested withinthe three years after discharge from prison. While older Caucasian inmates hadslightly higher rates of recidivism than minorities, the analysis showed theywere not significantly more likely to be rearrested.

Rateby other characteristics. The rate of recidivism was further analyzed by theinmates' educational attainment, substance abuse, and mental health levels todetermine if they had any relationship to the recidivism rates. Table IV-2provides the percentage of inmates for various levels of educational attainment,mental health, and substance abuse who were rearrested at least once andsubsequently reconvicted and reincarcerated.

Consistent with the national research, the lowerthe educational grade level or the more chronic or serious the mental illness orsubstance abuse problem, the higher the overall rate of rearrest andreconviction. However, the analysis showed only an inmate's substance abuselevel was a strong predictor of rearrest, while educational attainment andmental health levels were not.

Patterns of repeat criminal activity.Criminal justice researchers have studied the general patterns of criminalbehavior in addition to measuring the rates of recidivism. This research isoften used to determine whether repeat offenders "specialize" incertain types of crime. The consensus throughout the literature is mostrecidivists have a varied pattern of offending and typically commit differenttypes of crimes. Therefore, the program review committee analyzed the firstrearrest within the three-year period after discharge from prison for anynew crime and not just the same crime.

Table IV-3 shows: (1) the total number ofinmates discharged from prison in 1997 by their primary type of crime (i.e.,homicide, robbery, burglary, sale of drugs, weapon possession, etc.); (2) thenumber rearrested for the same exact crime type as their primary offense; (3)the number rearrested not for the exact same type of crime, but for one in thesame crime category (i.e., violent, property, drug, other) as their primaryoffense; (4) the number rearrested for any other crime; and (5) the number notrearrested within the three-year release threshold.

There are limitations to these data. First, aspreviously stated, an inmate may be charged with more than one crime at rearrest.The analysis includes up to three charges per rearrest. The number of crimeslisted, therefore, is greater than the number of inmates.

Second, this analysis is based on an inmate's firstrearrest after being released from prison. Many of the inmates were rearrestedmultiple times during the three-year release threshold and those who did notrecommit the same type of crime as their primary offense at first rearrest mayhave done so at a later rearrest. However, a review of subsequent rearrest datashowed a similar pattern.

Most inmates were not rearrested for the exactsame crime that resulted in their original incarceration. Specifically, lessthan 30 percent of inmates initially convicted of larceny were rearrested for anew larceny offense, and 19 percent of burglars recommitted a new burglary.Among drug offenders, 23 percent of those incarcerated for drug possession wererearrested for that crime, and 16 percent of drug sellers were rearrested forthe sale of illegal drugs. Inmates previously convicted of assault had thehighest rate (16 percent) among violent offenders of recommitting the same exactcrime. None of the inmates whose primary offense was homicide recommitted murderor manslaughter, and only 5 percent of sexual assault offenders were rearrestedfor that same crime. About 7 percent of robbery offenders recommitted a robbery.

As shown in Table IV-3, property and drugoffenders were more likely to "specialize" in a certain type of crime-- or recommit the exact same crime as their primary offense. Overall, 35percent of property offenders were rearrested for the first time after theirrelease from prison for a property crime, and 26 percent of drug offendersrecommitted another drug crime. A pattern of repeating the same type of crime isless evident among violent offenders. Less than one-quarter of violent offenderswere rearrested (for the first time after discharge from prison) for a violentcrime.

As noted above, when the types of crimescommitted by inmates with multiple rearrests were examined, the data showed asimilar pattern. Only property and drug offenders showed a likelihood to berearrested for new property crimes, while violent offenders were less likely torecommit another violent crime. The vast majority of the new criminal activityinvolved property crime, drug sale and possession offenses, and a wide range ofnonviolent and less serious felonies and misdemeanor crimes such as disorderlyconduct, criminal trespass, breach of peace, and motor vehicle infractions.

Severity of repeat crime. A comprehensiveanalysis of crime includes, in addition to the number and type of offenses, areview of the severity of the offenses. For the purposes of this study, severityis measured by felony and misdemeanor status of the crime. Felony offenses aremore serious and under state law punishable by more than one year in prison.Misdemeanors are less serious and punishable by a year or less in prison.Persons convicted of a felony or misdemeanor may also be sentenced to analternative sanction or a fine. There is a third category of offenses -- aviolation or infraction. These crimes do not rise to the level of a felony ormisdemeanor offenses, and are typically a breach of a local ordinance, a motorvehicle offense, or other minor offense.

Table IV-4 shows the severity of the crimes forwhich the inmate group was rearrested. As expected, most of the violent crimeswere felonies, except for assault. Almost 80 percent of assaults weremisdemeanors. Based on the data, a large percentage of all violent crimescommitted during the three-year release threshold were for assault, but were ofa less serious nature.

Almost three-quarters of the property crimes,which represented the bulk of repeat criminal activity by the inmate group, weremisdemeanors. However, all of the drug sale and most of the drug possessionoffenses were felonies.

Only a small percentage of the repeat criminalactivities were infractions. Most of these were motor vehicle offenses such aslicense and driving violations.

Number of new arrests. The program reviewcommittee database included the total number of rearrests per inmate within thethree-year period under review. Thirty-one percent of the inmates were notrearrested. Of the 69 percent rearrested, there were on average almost three(2.7) rearrests per offender. The number of rearrests ranged from one to 24.

The data were analyzed by the number ofrearrests and the primary offense. There were no real differences in thepercentages of inmates within each crime category with multiple rearrests exceptproperty offenders. Property offenders tended to have more rearrests than othertypes of offenders. As shown in Table IV-5, almost one-third had at least sixrearrests during the three-year release threshold.

The rearrest data were also examined by theinmates' age at discharge. The analysis showed younger inmates, especially thosebetween 16 and 21 years, had more rearrests during the three-year releasethreshold than older inmates. Almost 40 percent of inmates between 16 and 21years were rearrested five or more times in three years.

In interpreting these data, it is important toacknowledge that those inmates with only one rearrest during the three-yearperiod may have been reincarcerated during the remainder of the at-risk period,which ended at December 21, 2000. Therefore, they would not have the opportunityto reoffend multiple times. This issue will be examined later in this chapter.

Time at risk. The length of timeoffenders were in the community and at risk of reoffending until thefirst rearrest was examined. This period of time was defined by the programreview committee as the release threshold. For the purposes of this study, theminimum at-risk period is three years. Even those offenders under some form ofcommunity supervision such as probation or parole are still considered at riskof reoffending. The committee analyzed the at risk period until the firstrearrest for each group and the average length of time between multiplerearrests.

Theaverage period at risk prior to the first rearrest among the inmates was aboutone year. Figure IV-9 shows 25 percent (1,010) of all inmates (4,006) wererearrested within the first six months after their discharge from prison. By theend of the first year after discharge, 40 percent of the inmates had beenrearrested, and within three years after discharge almost two-thirds (65percent) were rearrested at least once.

Of the 2,745 inmates who were rearrested duringthe three-year period, 78 percent (2,147) were rearrested more than once.Therefore, the at-risk period between multiple rearrests was calculated as thenumber of days between dates of rearrest. The at-risk period between multiplerearrests was substantially shorter than the period from discharge to firstrearrest, which as stated was about one year. The average at-risk period betweenthe first and second rearrests was six months. The average period drops to aboutfour months for each subsequent rearrest. The at-risk period between rearrestsis naturally shorter as the number of rearrests increases because the releasethreshold under review is only three years.

The data showed less than 3 percent ofrearrested inmates were sentenced to three or more years in prison as a resultof their first rearrest. The majority of the inmates remained in or returned tothe community after a brief period of incarceration at some point during thethree-year release threshold.

Reconviction and sentencing. The varioustypes of dispositions were categorized as guilty or not guilty. The criminalsentence that may be imposed for a guilty verdict included the use of prison,probation, fine, or an alternative sanction such as conditional andunconditional discharge, accelerated rehabilitation, youthful offender status,or diversionary program. No sanction was imposed for a not guilty verdict.

Almosthalf (46 percent) of the inmates who discharged from prison in 1997 weresubsequently reconvicted of a new crime. Figure IV-10 shows almost half (45percent) were reconvicted of a drug sale or possession offense and 20 percent ofproperty crimes, the majority of which were burglaries. Nineteen percent of theinmates were convicted of a violent crime, most of which were for assault androbbery.

The severity of the reconviction offenses wasalso examined. Again, the status of felony, misdemeanor, and infraction wereused to gauge the seriousness of a crime.

When analyzing reconviction data, it isimportant to note that an offender may not be convicted of the exact crime forwhich he or she was arrested. As discussed earlier in this report, factors suchas combining or dropping charges, plea bargaining, dismissal of charges, and dueprocess or evidentiary issues can have an impact on the ultimate disposition ofa criminal case. The recidivism data examined showed in most cases inmates werenot reconvicted of the exact crime for which they were rearrested, but werereconvicted of the same category of crime (e.g., violent, property, drug). Forexample, an inmate may have been charged with a drug sale offense, but convictedof a lesser drug possession crime. Also, many times offenders were charged witha felony, but convicted of a misdemeanor.

Overall, the inmate group was reconvicted ofmore felony crimes. This may be attributed to their more extensive criminalhistories, which may limit plea bargaining options or dismissal of charges.

All of the reconvictions for the violent crimesof homicide, sexual assault, kidnapping, arson, and robbery were at the felonylevel, but reconvictions for assault were mostly misdemeanors. These violentcrimes, however, accounted for a very small percentage of the total repeatcriminal activity.

Most of the repeat criminal activity by inmatesinvolved property crimes. About three-quarters of the burglary and forgeryreconvictions were felonies, but only half of the larceny reconvictions werefelonies. Similarly, most of the reconvictions for a drug sale or possessioncrime were felonies.

In general, the serious nature of the new crimesfor which inmates were reconvicted is a factor in the type of sentences imposedby the court. As previously stated, 22 percent of all dischargedinmates (4,006) were sent back to prison and 18 percent were sentenced to aperiod of probation as a result of a reconviction for a new crime.

However,as Figure IV-11 shows, of the inmates reincarcerated, 42 percent were sentencedto a specific period of incarceration -- a "flat" prison term. One infive were sentenced to a prison term followed by a period of probation -- a"split" sentence. The average prison term was slightly less than twoyears, and the sentence lengths ranged from 30 days to 55 years.

Almost 30 percent of the reconvicted inmateswere sentenced to a period of probation, which averaged about three years, and10 percent were fined. Finally, 4 percent of the reconvicted inmates did notreceive a specific sentence. The lack of sentencing data may be a result ofmissing or incomplete data or the inmate's case may still be pending for thecourt to impose a sentence.

Program participation. As discussed inChapter One, the rate of program participation among a random sample of inmateswas examined. Program participation in prison and in the community was reviewedfor 423 inmates. Inmates are not required to participate in programs whileincarcerated, but they may be required by DOC, the parole board, or the court toparticipate in a specific community-based program as a condition of their earlyrelease from prison.

DOC administers or funds over 300 prison andcommunity-based programs and services for inmates. The programs are categorizedas: academic education; addiction services; mental health services;administrative segregation and disciplinary programs; family and parentingservices; prison industries; self-improvement programs; sex offender program;transitional services; vocational education; residential community-basedprograms; nonresidential community-based programs; and other services such ashealth education, cultural diversity, and religious services. Due to patientconfidentiality issues, certain health education programs (e.g., AIDS and HIVawareness and education services) were not included in the analysis.

The program participation data were used todetermine whether there was any difference in the recidivism rates among thoseoffenders who participated in programs and those who did not. Table IV-6compares the rate of rearrest among both groups of inmates -- participants andnonparticipants.

Overall, the data showed program participationhad no positive relationship to the inmates' likelihood of rearrest afterdischarging from prison. The only program that showed a significantly lower rateof rearrest among participants was prison industries. This may be attributed totwo factors. First, typically inmates with longer prison sentences are selectedto participate in the prison industries program. This allows a sufficient periodof time to train and provide actual work experience for the inmates. Inmateswith shorter sentences are generally released from prison prior to completingthe training and being assigned a job. It should be noted, however, the datashowed inmates with longer sentences were less likely to be rearrested evenwithout participating in the prison industries program. Second, prisonindustries provides marketable skills training, practical work experience, andpays a minimum wage that may better assist in an inmate's transition from prisonto the community.

For some types of programs such as academiceducation, mental health, self-improvement, and transitional services, theinmates who participated actually had a higher rate of rearrest than those whodid not participate. This pattern appears to be counter-intuitive.

One explanation is participation in theseprograms may not be a contributing factor to the likelihood of rearrest. Theprograms may not be effective enough to overcome the other causes of repeatcriminal activity or simply may not be addressing the specific causes ofrecidivism. For example, inmates with serious mental illness may participate inmental health services while in prison, but they are not cured. Once releasedfrom prison and no longer residing in a structured environment, the inmate mayfail to continue with treatment and return to the behaviors that resulted intheir previous incarceration.

Another example involves inmates who are placedin the administrative segregation and disciplinary programs. The correctiondepartment places inmates in these programs because they are chronic or seriousdisciplinary problems or their primary offense is of such a serious or violentnature that it is difficult and/or unsafe to manage them in the general inmatepopulation. The objective of these programs is management of the inmate'sbehavior while in prison and not rehabilitation. Almost all of the offenders whoparticipated in this type of program were rearrested with three years afterdischarging from prison whereas two-thirds of the inmates who did notparticipate were rearrested. It is not surprising, therefore, that inmates whocannot behave in prison were rearrested once discharged.

Probationer Cohort Group

The analysis of the probationer cohort groupparallels that of the inmate group. The same limitations on the data for theinmate sample also apply to interpreting the probationers' data. For example,the rearrest rate exceeds the reconviction rates because not all arrestedoffenders are prosecuted and convicted and, due to the court's lag time indisposing of cases, not all convictions occurred within the selected follow-upperiod. Likewise, reconviction rates are greater than reincarceration ratesbecause not all convicted offenders are sent to prison. Some are sentenced toprobation, fined, or diverted into alternative sanction programs.

Overallrates of recidivism. Figure IV-12 shows 58 percent (6,021) of the 10,402probationers were rearrested at least once during the three-year releasethreshold, and 32 percent were subsequently reconvicted of a new felony ormisdemeanor crime.

This cohort group of offenders had originallybeen sentenced to probation supervision or another sanction without a communitysupervision component rather than incarcerated as a result of their primaryfelony conviction. However, 11 percent were sent to prison as a result of areconviction, but almost half of them received a "split" sentence,which is a period of incarceration followed by a period of probationsupervision.

Twenty-one percent of the probationers wereagain placed under probation supervision or sentenced to another alternativesanction as a result of a new crime. It is interesting to note, however, mostrearrested probationers were not sentenced.

Ratebased on primary offense category and crime type. Figure IV-13 showsthe rates of recidivism for probationers based on the six major crime categoriesof primary offense. Drug and VOP offenders were more likely to berearrested, reconvicted, and incarcerated than the other probationers in thegroup. Motor vehicle offenders were significantly less likely to recidivatewithin the three-year release threshold and, of those rearrested, none were sentto prison.

The rate of incarceration among the probationerswho recidivated was low (about 11 percent), which may be related to their lessextensive and serious criminal histories. Only the VOP and drug offenders had ahigher rate of incarceration (13 percent).

Repeat criminal activity by probationers wasalso examined based on the offenders' primary crime type. Table IV-7 showsrearrest, reconviction, and incarceration data. Probationers previouslyconvicted of homicide, sexual assault, and risk of injury to a minor had thelowest rates of rearrest and reconviction.

The highest rates of rearrest were amongprobationers originally sentenced for a violation of probation, a felony drugsale or possession conviction, robbery, or kidnapping. These offenders were alsomore likely to be reconvicted of a new crime than other types of probationers.

Totalcriminal activity. Within the three-year release threshold, 58 percent(6,021) of probationers were rearrested at least once. Based on the totalcharges for the first rearrest, the probationers committed 11,797 new felony andmisdemeanor crimes.

As shown in Figure IV-14, more than half of thecriminal activity involved the sale or possession of drugs, possession of aweapon, risk of injury to a minor, disorderly conduct, and minor assaults.Fifteen percent of the crimes were violent, and 20 percent were propertyoffenses.

Rate by demographics. Figure IV-15 showsthe recidivism rate based on rearrest, reconviction, and incarceration among theprobationers based on their age at sentencing to probation. As shown, recidivismrates for all three measures were higher for younger probationers than any otherage group. About 68 percent of all felony probationers between the ages of 16and 21 were rearrested. Over one-third (37 percent) were reconvicted of a newcrime, and 14 percent were sent to prison as a result. Consistent with thepattern among the inmate cohort group, older probationers -- those over 40 years-- had the lowest recidivism rates.

Also similar to the inmate group, maleprobationers had a significantly higher rate of recidivism than females. Asshown in Figure IV-16, 61 percent of male inmates were rearrested for a newcrime compared to 45 percent of females. Female probationers had much lowerrates of reconviction and incarceration than males. Less than one-quarter of thefemale probationers were reconvicted of a new crime compared to 34 percent ofthe males. Male probationers (13 percent) were twice as likely as females (6percent) to be sent to prison as a result of the conviction.

Therecidivism rate when analyzed by the racial group among probationers showedcertain minority groups had higher rates of rearrest, reconviction, andreincarceration, as with the inmate group. In Figure IV-17, African Americanprobationers had a 67 percent rearrest rate and Hispanics a 65 percent ratecompared to 49 percent for Caucasian probationers. (American Indian, Asian, andother racial groups again were not included in the analysis because theyrepresented less than 1 percent of the total probationer sample.)

About40 percent of minority probationers and 27 percent of Caucasians werereconvicted of a new crime. Similarly, 15 percent of minority probationers weresent to prison as a result of a conviction compared to 8 percent of Caucasians.

When the probationer's race and age atsentencing were analyzed together, the data showed young minority inmates weremore likely to be rearrested. As shown in Figure IV-18, 15 percent of Caucasianprobationers between 16 and 21 years old were rearrested compared to 24 percentof African Americans and 23 percent of Hispanic probationers of the same age.

Rate by other characteristics. The ratesof recidivism were also analyzed by the probationers' levels of educationalattainment, substance abuse, and mental health. Table IV-8 provides thepercentage of inmates within each level for education, mental health, andsubstance abuse who were rearrested at least once. Consistent with the inmategroup and national research, the lower the educational grade level or the moreserious the substance abuse problem of the probationer, the higher the overallrate of recidivism. The analysis further showed only the probationer's substanceabuse level was a strong predictor of rearrest while educational attainment andmental health levels were not.

Thedata showed one difference between the inmate and probationer groups.Probationers classified with no mental health problem had higher rates ofrearrest, reconviction, and incarceration. This may be attributed to the lessserious nature of the characteristics and criminal activity of the probationersas a group.

Patterns of repeat criminal activity. Thepattern of repeat criminal behavior among the probationer cohort group memberswas analyzed to determine if they are more likely to "specialize" incertain types of crimes. The definitions and methodology used to conduct thisanalysis for the inmate group were also used for the probationers.

Table IV-9 shows the: (1) total number ofprobationers sentenced in 1997 by their primary offense type; (2) numberrearrested for the same exact crime as their primary offense; (3) numberrearrested not for the exact same crime type, but for one in the same crimecategory; (4) number rearrested for any other crime; and (5) number notrearrested within the three-year release threshold. The limitations to this dataare the same as those set forth in the analysis of the inmate cohort group.

Like the inmate group, most probationers werenot rearrested for the exact same crime that resulted in their 1997 convictionand sentence to probation. As the table shows, probationers are even less likelythan inmates to "specialize" in a certain type of crime.

Probationers originally convicted of burglaryhad the highest rate of rearrest (27 percent) for the same crime. One-third ofprobationers originally sentenced for a weapons violation were rearrested for asimilar crime, about 15 percent of those with a prior forgery or fraudconviction were rearrested for a new forgery or fraud crime, less than 10percent of probationers with a prior arson conviction were rearrested for arson,and only 3 percent of those convicted of selling drugs were rearrested for adrug-sale crime.

While most probationers were not rearrested fora new crime in the same category as their primary offense (e.g., violent,property, drug, other), there were some interesting patterns. About one-quarterof drug offenders were rearrested for a drug sale or possession offense and 21percent of property offenders recommitted a property crime such as burglary orlarceny. The data showed 14 percent of violent probationers were rearrested foranother violent crime, predominantly an assault on another person.

There was also no strong pattern of"specialization" among probationers with multiple rearrests during thethree-year period under review. Like the inmate group, only property and drugoffenders showed a likelihood to recommit the same type of crimes, and violentoffenders were less likely to be rearrested for another violent crime. On thewhole, the new criminal activity was nonviolent and consisted of less seriousfelonies or misdemeanor property crimes, drug possession offenses, and a widerange of crimes such as disorderly conduct, breach of peace, and motor vehicleinfractions.

Severity of repeat crime. Table IV-10shows the severity of the crimes for which the probationer group was rearrested.The same categories used for the analysis of the inmate data -- felony,misdemeanor, and infraction -- were used for this group. Like the inmate group,most of the violent crimes committed by probationers were felonies. In fact, thepattern was stronger among this group in that all of the violent crimes, exceptfor arson, were felonies. However, as shown above, only a small percentage ofprobationers were rearrested for a violent crime.

Most of the probationers were rearrested for aproperty crime. As the data showed, all were misdemeanors.

All of the drug sale offenses were felonies, butabout three-quarters of the drug possession crimes were misdemeanors. Only asmall percentage of the repeat criminal activity were infractions and most weremotor vehicle offenses.

Number of new arrests. The total numberof rearrests during the three-year release threshold for each probationer wascalculated and is set forth in Table IV-11. More than 40 percent of theprobationers were not rearrested. Of the 58 percent that were rearrested, therewere on average almost two (1.8) rearrests per offender. The number of rearrestsranged from one to 36 during the three-year release threshold.

When analyzed by the offenders' primaryoffenses, about half of the probationers within each crime category had no morethan two rearrests during the three-year period. Property offenders andprobation violators tended to have the most rearrests. Almost 20 percent ofproperty offender and 16 percent of VOP offenders had six or more rearrests.

As with the inmate data, it is import toconsider probationers with only one rearrest may have been incarcerated as aresult. They would, therefore, not be in the community and at risk ofreoffending during the remainder of the three-year release threshold. Also, theprobation cohort group generally committed less serious crimes than the inmatesample, and most were still under probation supervision from their originalsentence at the time they reoffended. So, while a probationer may have multiplearrests, the type and severity of the criminal activity may not require thecourt to impose a term of imprisonment or the court may simply modify theconditions of the primary sentence of probation rather than impose a newsanction.

Time at risk. As for the probationergroup, Figure IV-19 shows the time at risk before first rearrest was similar tothe inmate group. In general, however, fewer probationers were rearrested thaninmates.

Withinthe first six months after being sentenced to probation, 23 percent ofprobationers were rearrested. During the first year after being sentenced, 35percent were rearrested; within three years after being sentenced over 50percent have been rearrested at least once.

A key difference between the inmates andprobationers should be considered when reviewing this analysis. The inmates weredischarged from prison near or at the end of their sentence whereas theprobationers were just beginning their sentence to probation or other type ofsupervision sanction. More probationers were under some form of active communitysupervision during the at-risk period under review.

Reconviction and sentencing. As with theanalysis of the inmate data, the criminal court dispositions were categorized asguilty or not guilty. The sentences imposed included period of imprisonment orprobation supervision, a fine, or other alternative or diversionary program.

FigureIV-20 shows over 30 percent of the felony offenders who were sentenced toprobation in 1997 were subsequently reconvicted of a new crime during thethree-year release threshold. Thirty-one percent of the reconvicted probationerswere found guilty of a variety of crimes such as weapons offenses, risk ofinjury to a minor, perjury, tampering with a witness or evidence, and huntingand fishing violations. Twenty-six percent were reconvicted of a drug sale orpossession offense, 24 percent of a property crime, and 12 percent of a violentcrime.

As previously stated, an offender may not beconvicted of the exact crime for which he or she was arrested. The followinganalysis is based on the reconviction crime and, based on the felony ormisdemeanor status, the severity of that crime was analyzed. Overall,probationers were reconvicted of less serious felony and misdemeanor crimes.

Most of the rearrests for a violent crime werefor an assault. Three-quarters of the reconvictions for assault were at themisdemeanor level. The majority of crimes for which probationers were rearrestedwere property crimes such as burglary, larceny, and forgery. About 60 percent ofthe subsequent reconvictions for those crimes were misdemeanors. All of thereconvictions for a weapon possession, risk of injury to a minor, and drug saleoffenses were felonies.

Asshown in Figure IV-21, given the less serious nature of the crime committed bythe probationer group, only 11 percent of the reconvicted probationers (N=3,328)were incarcerated for a new crime. The average prison term imposed was less thanone year (nine months), and ranged from three days to 30 years.

Almost one-quarter were sentenced to anotherperiod of probation supervision, which averaged approximately two years. Manyprobationers reconvicted of a new crime, especially a misdemeanor, did notreceive a new sentence. Instead, the court modified or extended the originalsentence to probation.

Program participation. Participation inresidential and nonresidential community-based programs was reviewed for 1,211probationers. The court often orders an offender to participate in a program asa condition of release to community supervision. Probation officers can alsomodify the court order by referring an offender to a program or service toassist him or her to successfully complete the sentence.

The judicial branch contracts for a statewidenetwork of rehabilitative, treatment, and service programs including:alternative and day incarceration centers; alcohol and drug evaluation andtreatment; domestic violence, family, and women and children services; intensiveyouth services; mental health services; post-release supervision; sex offendertreatment; academic and vocational education; and residential programs. Inaddition, offenders may seek private treatment at their own expense.

Table IV-13 compares the rates of rearrest amongprobationers who participated in a community-based residential or nonresidentialprogram to those probationers who did not participate. Similar to the inmatesample, the data show program participation had no positive effect on theprobationer's rate of rearrest, except for the day incarceration center program.A day incarceration center is an alternative sanction program that requiresoffenders to report to and remain at the center for a specified period each day-- some stay for a few hours and others remain for an extended period. Duringthe day, the offenders participate in structured activities and treatmentprograms. Often times this program is mandated for offenders who are notemployed or attending an educational program. This program significantly reducedthe rate of rearrest among probationers who participated -- only one-quarterwere rearrested.

Substance abuse treatment, intensive youthservices, and residential programs such as halfway houses also had a reducedrate of rearrest among participants. These are structured, intensive programsthat typically service offenders with more serious problems and/or criminalhistories. Also, the offenders who sought -- and paid for -- private treatmenthad a lower rate of rearrest.

Similar to the inmate sample, the rearrestpattern among probationers who participated in programs appears to be at oddswith what would be expected. Again, an explanation may be participation in mostof the programs is neither a factor in increasing or decreasing the likelihoodof rearrest. The programs may not be targeting the appropriate offenders orproviding the services necessary to overcome the other causes of repeat criminalactivity. This analysis highlights the need for a comprehensive evaluation ofthe efficacy and cost benefits of prison and community-based treatment,rehabilitation, and service programs.

⁹Committee staff used various methods to analyze the data including aregression analysis. Regression analysis is a method of determining whetherthere is a statistically significant relationship between two or more variables.The analysis then attempted to determine which offender demographic or criminalhistory characteristic was a predictor of recidivism.

Return to Year 2001 Studies

Return to Table of Contents