A Snapshot of National Progress in Reentry 1

Making People’s

Transition from

Prison and Jail 

to the Community

Safe and Successful

 A Snapshot of National Progress in Reentry

June 2017
2

Looking back 

One of the most significant developments in 

criminal justice policy over the past 15 years has 

been a fundamental shift in thinking about the 

primary purpose of prisons and jails. Not long ago, 

elected officials saw the principal responsibility of 

corrections administrators as providing for the care, 

custody, and control of people who are incarcerated. 

Today, there is widespread agreement that government 

has a responsibility to ensure that when people are 

released to the community from jail or prison, they 

are less likely to reoffend than they were at the start of 

their sentence.

Although no single event is associated with this 

change in philosophy, a key milestone stands out. 

Late in 2004, Congress set to work on the Second 

Chance Act, which the House and Senate later 

passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. 

Elected officials in the nation’s capital had made 

clear that ensuring people’s safe and successful 

transition from prison and jail to the community 

wasn’t a partisan issue, but simply good, smart 

policy—because anything short of that objective 

compromises public safety, wastes taxpayer dollars, 

and undermines the well-being and stability of 

communities.

A decade since the passage of the Second Chance 

Act, it is time to consider a critical question: Have 

local, state, and federal efforts to improve reentry 

outcomes for people under correctional supervision 

yielded sufficient results?

This brief highlights five ways in which state and 

local governments’ approaches to reentry and 

recidivism reduction are fundamentally different 

today than they were a decade and a half ago.

The Second Chance Act

In April 2008, Congress passed 

the Second Chance Act, first-ofits-kind legislation enacted with 

bipartisan support and backed 

by a broad spectrum of leaders 

in law enforcement, corrections, 

courts, behavioral health, and 

other areas. The Second Chance 

Act established the National 

Reentry Resource Center and 

represents a federal investment 

of more than $540 million to date 

in strategies to reduce recidivism 

and increase public safety, as well 

as to reduce corrections costs for 

state and local governments.

Since 2009, nearly 800 Second 

Chance Act grant awards have 

been made to state, local, and 

tribal government agencies 

and nonprofit organizations 

from 49 states that provide 

reentry services to adults and 

juveniles. As of June 2015, more 

than 137,000 people returning 

to their community after 

incarceration have participated 

in these programs. Grantees 

provide vital services—including 

employment training and 

assistance, substance use 

treatment, education, housing, 

family programming, mentoring, 

victims support, and other 

services—to make a person’s 

transition from prison or jail 

safer and more successful. 

The grants also support the 

improvement of corrections 

and supervision practices that 

aim to reduce recidivism, and 

incentivize jurisdictions and 

organizations to incorporate the 

latest research into their everyday 

practices. The Second Chance 

Act’s grant programs are funded 

and administered by the U.S. 

Department of Justice’s Office of 

Justice Programs.
 A Snapshot of National Progress in Reentry 3

The complexity of measuring recidivism

A logical approach to evaluating national efforts to 

improve outcomes for people under correctional 

supervision would be to assess changes in recidivism 

rates. But tracking and analyzing changes in national 

recidivism rates is a unique challenge for a host of 

reasons. First, there is no monolithic, nationwide 

corrections system. There are 50 different state 

corrections systems, more than 3,000 independent 

systems at the county level, and parole and probation 

agencies that are administered differently in each state.

Second, while most states routinely measure 

recidivism for people released from state prison,1 

fewer than one in three states track recidivism for 

the 3.7 million people on probation who represent 

the vast majority of the nearly 4.6 million people 

under correctional supervision in the U.S., and 

very few counties track recidivism for the millions 

of people released from local jails each year. For 

these reasons, recidivism data doesn’t exist for the 

majority of people under correctional supervision.

In addition to the lack of consistency in tracking 

recidivism from one jurisdiction or population to 

the next, the definition of recidivism—whether 

it’s rearrest, reconviction, or reincarceration—and 

the methodologies used to calculate it also vary 

from state to state and at the local level. So even 

when recidivism data is available, it is extremely 

difficult to accurately synthesize across states and 

counties in the U.S. and compare trends from one 

jurisdiction to another.2

Finally, most recidivism studies reflect outcomes for 

a three- to five-year period after someone’s release 

from prison or jail or from the start of a person’s 

probation sentence.3 As a result, a recidivism study 

reports on the behavior of people who recidivated 

(i.e., were rearrested, reconvicted, or reincarcerated) 

up to five years earlier, and as such, doesn’t show 

the impact of more recent systemic efforts to reduce 

recidivism. In addition to the challenges inherent in 

the lengthy timeframes that this analysis requires, 

national studies make it impossible to distinguish 

trends within particular jurisdictions4—nor have 

those studies shown a reduction in recidivism.
4

In 2016 and 2017, nearly half of 

U.S. governors cited reentry and 

reducing recidivism as ongoing 

efforts or future priorities in State 

of the State addresses.

Robert Bentley, Alabama

Bill Walker, Alaska

Doug Ducey, Arizona

Asa Hutchinson, Arkansas

Dannel Malloy, Connecticut

John Carney, Delaware

Nathan Deal, Georgia

Bruce Rauner, Illinois

Terry Branstad, Iowa

John Bel Edwards, Louisiana

Larry Hogan, Maryland

Rick Snyder, Michigan

Eric Greitens, Missouri

Pete Ricketts, Nebraska

Maggie Hassan, New Hampshire

Chris Christie, New Jersey

Mary Fallin, Oklahoma

Dennis Daugaard, South Dakota

Bill Haslam, Tennessee

Terry McAuliffe, Virginia

Improving reentry and reducing recidivism

are central to the missions of local, state, and

federal agencies focused on public safety.

Since 2012, more than 20 governors have committed 

to comprehensive policy and practice improvements 

to achieve statewide reductions in recidivism through 

initiatives that are supported by Second Chance Act 

Statewide Adult Recidivism Reduction (SRR) grants.

“The potential for eventual success of 

offenders to transition from a cycle 

of criminal behavior to becoming 

and remaining successful parents, 

spouses, and citizens has never been 

greater. “

 Sheriff Scott Jones, Sacramento County, California 

1

As recently as a decade ago, the general sentiment among elected officials and people 

working in the criminal justice system was that high rates of recidivism among people 

released from prison and jail were inevitable, and the primary purpose of probation and 

parole supervision was surveillance, which largely served as a vehicle to incarcerate 

or reincarcerate people when they reoffended. Today, corrections agencies around the 

country are engaged in efforts to reduce the likelihood that someone will reoffend.
 A Snapshot of National Progress in Reentry 5

As of 2017, there were more than 

300 Veterans Treatment Courts 

throughout the country to enable 

the specific needs of veterans 

to be considered in release and 

sentencing decisions.5 Outreach 

specialists from the Department 

of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) Veterans 

Justice Outreach Program, 

which connects veterans in the 

justice system with VA and other 

community services, participate 

in more than 93 percent of 

Veterans Treatment Court 

sessions throughout the country.6 

State legislators from across the 

political spectrum are enacting laws 

to make it easier for people released 

from prison and jail to reintegrate 

into the community. To date, at 

least 15 states have policies in place 

to help people obtain state-issued 

identification after release from 

prison. Twenty-seven states and 

more than 150 cities and counties 

have adopted “ban the box” policies 

so that people with criminal 

records are not unnecessarily 

excluded from the workplace.7

Employers—including Best 

Buy, CVS Health, Facebook, 

Gap, Greyston Bakery, The 

Hershey Company, the Johns 

Hopkins Health System, Koch 

Industries, Lyft, PepsiCo, 

Starbucks, Target, and Uber—

are increasingly promoting 

hiring people with criminal 

records as a sensible business 

practice. And since 2015, with 

assistance from the National 

Reentry Resource Center, 35 

business engagement events 

have been held in cities across 

23 states to bring business 

owners, policymakers, 

workforce development 

professionals, and community 

members together to explore 

ways to reduce barriers to 

employment for people with 

criminal records.

A remarkably diverse set of constituencies 

outside of the justice system embraces the 

goal of helping people who are returning to 2their communities after incarceration succeed.

In June 2016, 67 colleges 

and universities in 27 states 

were selected from more than 

200 applicants to participate 

in the Second Chance Pell 

Pilot Program, which enables 

more than 12,000 eligible 

people in more than 100 

federal and state correctional 

institutions to receive 

college-level instruction.

There is a growing number of 

counties—such as Hennepin 

County, Minnesota, 

Mecklenberg County, North 

Carolina, and San Mateo 

County, California—where 

local agencies responsible 

for behavioral health services 

review local jail admissions 

to determine whether people 

entering the jail have a history 

of receiving behavioral health 

services. And since spring 2015, 

365 counties—representing 

more than a third of the U.S. 

population—have joined the 

Stepping Up initiative to help 

reduce the number of people 

with mental illnesses booked 

into jail, reduce the length of 

time they spend in jail, increase 

their connections to treatment, 

and reduce recidivism. 

Not long ago, community-based mental health care providers 

generally viewed a person with a mental illness booked into jail as 

someone else’s responsibility. State children’s services agencies did not 

know when a child’s parent was incarcerated. Workforce development 

agencies did not consider the unique challenges an unemployed 

person with a criminal record faced in trying to join the workforce.

Today, it is common for leaders, managers, and front-line staff in 

government agencies—such as those focused on health and veterans’ 

services, education, and housing—to recognize the stake they have 

in supporting people under correctional supervision. Similarly, 

organizations outside of government, such as businesses and faithbased groups, have become increasingly outspoken about the 

obstacles that people released from prison and jail face.
6

Extensive research issued over the last decade

has found that the risk of recidivism, as well as 

needs related to mental health and substance use 

treatment, housing, employment, and education, 

among others, vary significantly from person to 

person. Data shows that treatment, programming, 

and supervision resources must be deployed in 

ways that account for a person’s specific risk and 

needs, and that any approach that focuses only on 

supervision or only on services will have a negligible 

impact on recidivism.8

A RAND Corporation study funded by a 

Second Chance Act grant found that people 

who participated in correctional education 

programs were 43 percent less likely to 

reoffend and 13 percent more likely to 

secure employment than those who did not 

participate in these programs.11

Research and fiscal cost-benefit analyses have shown 

that punishment alone is not effective in changing 

behavior, but should be accompanied by evidencebased programming and treatment both before 

and after release for the greatest impact. And to be 

most effective at reducing recidivism, programming 

and treatment should focus on changing criminal 

thinking, increasing prosocial relationships and 

activities, treating substance use disorders, and 

ensuring a stable living environment.9

Effective supervision strategies include reinforcing 

positive behavior, promptly administering 

interventions or rewards for behavior, and 

establishing clear processes for the courts or officers 

to respond to both negative and positive behavior.10

The science on what works to reduce 

recidivism has advanced considerably 

over the last 20 years.

A corrections employee charged with preparing 

someone for his or her release was previously 

expected to connect that person to whatever 

scarce program slots—in prison industries, drug 

treatment, etc.—might be available in the facility. 

Case managers working with someone after their 

release from incarceration saw their role as being 

a broker to limited services and supports offered 

in the community. Everyone placed under parole 

or probation supervision received the same type of 

supervision.

Since then, a rich body of research on what 

works to reduce recidivism has emerged—which, 

in hindsight, seems fairly intuitive. Now, it is 

commonly understood that each person released 

from prison has distinct criminogenic risk and 

needs. The mere existence of a program does 

not mean that it will benefit a person under 

correctional supervision, particularly when it does 

not correspond to his or her unique risk and needs. 

And even when a person needs a particular type of 

service, such as drug treatment, that service must 

be delivered according to the program model or it is 

unlikely to have any impact on a person’s behavior. 

Perhaps most importantly, research has shown that 

changing the behavior of a person with a medium 

to high risk of reoffending does not happen through 

the delivery of a single program or service, or a 

specific approach to supervision, but rather through 

a combination of supervision and service strategies 

that are tailored to the individual risk and needs of 

that person.

3
 A Snapshot of National Progress in Reentry 7

Many state and local governments and their 

community-based partners are applying the 

latest research to policy, programming, and 

practice decisions.

Not long ago, policymakers who promoted the latest research about what works to 

reduce recidivism often encountered management teams and line staff who were 

disinclined to abandon decades of experience and make supervision and programming 

decisions in a different way. Elected officials and system administrators who sought 

comprehensive recidivism numbers found that this data often did not exist—and when it 

did exist, the information was dated or accounted only for part of the population under 

correctional supervision. A significant gap still exists between recidivism-reduction 

science and routine policy and procedure. But states and localities are increasingly 

translating current recidivism-reduction research into practice.

Between 2007 and 2015, 

at least 20 states enacted 

legislation that emphasizes—

or in some cases mandates—

the use of risk and needs 

assessments, and at least 

14 states passed reforms 

that require or support the 

implementation of correctional 

evidence-based practices.15

More and more, state and local 

governments are structuring 

contracts to make clear that 

providers are being paid not 

simply to deliver services but 

to improve outcomes.13

Through their SRR 

grants, Illinois integrated 

evidence-based core 

correctional practices 

into its correctional 

training academy 

curriculum, and the 

Iowa Department of 

Corrections began 

extensive staff training in 

conducting risk and needs 

assessments properly—

which has resulted in a 

90-percent increase in 

staff proficiency.12

States are improving 

their capacity to measure 

recidivism. Eleven states 

monitor rearrest rates and 15 

states monitor reconviction 

rates for people released from 

prison—in addition to tracking 

reincarceration rates for people 

released from prison.14

22%

of states track 

rearrest

30%

of states track 

reconviction

States that passed legislation 

related to risk and needs 

assessments

States that passed legislation 

related to evidence-based practices

4
8

State and local governments’ efforts to apply 

the latest science are producing results.

The number of people 

returning to Michigan

prisons from parole with 

new convictions dropped 

43 percent.

18

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

2,019 1,993 2,029 1,968

1,793

1,523

1,406 1,387

1,266

1,159

In Texas, the number of 

people revoked to prison 

from parole declined 

33 percent.

17

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

8,000

9,000

10,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

9,381

7,444 7,149

6,678 6,725

6,169

5,770 5,629 5,608

6,272

The number of people 

admitted to North Carolina

prisons for probation 

revocations declined 42 

percent.

19 

16000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

14000

12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0

14,371 14,330 14,494

15,976

14,718 15,118

11,154

7,436 7,440 7,898

5

As state and local governments progress in their commitment to recidivism reduction 

and hone their approaches to improving reentry outcomes, they are beginning to see 

measurable improvements in recidivism rates. Reducing Recidivism: States Deliver 

Results, a brief released by The Council of State Governments Justice Center in June 

2017, profiles seven states that have seen success across various recidivism measures: 

rearrest, reconviction, reincarceration, and revocation. Using the most up-to-date data 

from Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas, 

the brief features data on people under community supervision for a more comprehensive 

picture of recidivism. Below are highlights from the brief.16
 A Snapshot of National Progress in Reentry 9

Looking ahead

Despite the encouraging progress described here, the field is still very far from realizing the 

goal of ensuring that people’s transition from prison or jail to the community is safe and 

successful. Like other ambitious goals that local, state, and federal leaders embraced long 

before setting their sights on reducing recidivism—such as reducing teenage pregnancy or 

improving high school graduation rates—unqualified success will require decades of work.

“Moonshot” efforts such as these are dependent on the work of thousands of local, 

state, and federal agencies and their community-based partners, and typically result in 

pockets of success in different places across the country, incremental gains nationally, 

and lots of trial and error that we can appreciate only in hindsight. As everyone 

committed to ensuring safe and successful reentry recognizes, accepting current rates of 

failure is simply not an option.

Realizing a true transformation of large, complicated, independent systems will 

require significant, ongoing efforts to:

Align state and local policy with what research 

demonstrates is effective in reducing recidivism

Elected officials and system administrators should push state and local agencies and 

private service providers to adopt evidence-based practices—such as the use of risk and 

needs assessments to inform decisions about who receives what programming, services, 

and supervision. There are existing laws and policies that require people to participate in 

programs or receive supervision based on the nature of their offense or due to technical 

factors such as fines and fees that are owed, regardless of whether they need programming or 

supervision to prevent reoffending. State and local leaders should identify and revise these 

existing laws and policies that impede efforts to ground everyday practice in the latest science.

Develop a workforce that understands, embraces, and 

applies the latest research

Providing a policy framework for research-driven practice does not, in and of itself, 

change the approach that hundreds of thousands of people working for corrections, 

supervision agencies, and service and treatment providers take to their jobs. Engaging, 

motivating, and enhancing the skills and quality of this workforce requires a concerted, 

long-term effort. Although much work has been done to develop and deliver curricula to 

new and existing staff, typically only a fraction of the professionals who would benefit 

from this training actually receive it. And as important as 20 or even 40 hours of training 

are, that step is insufficient to fundamentally change the mindset of the workforce. Top 

brass and mid-level managers must commit themselves to overhauling the culture of 

the organization, which includes steps such as streamlining and automating processes, 

modifying the approach to personnel reviews and evaluations, and holding accountable 

those managers who do not embrace and promote these changes.

Improve state and local governments’ capacity to collect 

and analyze data

To understand whether changes in policy and practice are having their intended impact, 

elected and appointed officials need recidivism data. Reincarceration data is insufficient. 

Reconviction and rearrest data, which can be sorted by a person’s risk level, and which is 

maintained for one-, two-, or three-year follow-up periods, is essential to track outcomes 

effectively from one year to the next and even month to month. There needs to be a 

baseline against which to measure progress. 
10

Monitor and assure quality of programs and services

It is not uncommon for a state or local government agency or a community-based service 

provider to commit itself to an evidence-based policy or practice only to see little, if any, 

impact on recidivism. A key reason for these discouraging results is the way in which 

the research was applied or translated into practice. Effective quality assurance includes 

strategies such as testing how well risk and needs assessments are conducted, observing 

the types of interactions staff are having with people under their supervision, and 

assessing how well programs are being delivered. This type of quality assurance helps 

system administrators root out vestiges of practices and programs that research has 

made clear do not work. It also informs system administrators where gaps in services, 

skills, training, and policy remain.

Increase investment in effective programs, services, 

and supervision

When a probation or parole officer’s caseload is impossibly high, it is unrealistic to 

expect that officer to find the time to provide the type of support and supervision 

necessary to help a person who is at a medium or high risk of offending change his or 

her behaviors. Similarly, a person battling mental illness or addiction is unlikely to get 

on a path to recovery if he or she does not have access to needed treatment. As long as 

the resources available are insufficient to meet existing levels of demand, reductions in 

recidivism will fall short of what is possible.

Develop additional knowledge

Although the research today about “what works” to reduce recidivism is undeniably 

more robust than it was 15 years ago, there is still much that remains unknown. For 

example, it remains unclear what intensity and duration of programming and services 

is necessary to maximize a person’s likelihood of changing criminal thinking and 

behaviors. Similarly, recognizing that a person’s risk and needs are often multifaceted, 

program and practice models have yet to be evaluated rigorously to demonstrate what 

it looks like when the right combination of community supervision, drug treatment, 

mental health, and housing services are integrated for someone who has both high risk 

and high needs. And most would agree that it is valuable for a person with a medium or 

high risk of reoffending to have a positive relationship with a mentor who encourages 

that person to engage in treatment and supervision. But research has yet to emerge that 

proves what makes a mentor effective in improving someone’s success in reentry. 

Bipartisan support from the federal government was a critical factor in galvanizing 

the field in these efforts in the first place, and it will be key to maintaining the 

momentum that has been achieved to date. The states, counties, cities, towns, and 

even neighborhoods across the country will continue to be the laboratories to test new 

approaches and replicate successful policies and practices.
 A Snapshot of National Progress in Reentry 11

Endnotes

1. State measures of recidivism 

are overwhelmingly limited to 

reincarceration.

2. As a case in point, in its 2011 “State 

of Recidivism” report on recidivism 

rates in all 50 states, The Pew 

Charitable Trusts’ Public Safety 

Performance Project cautions that 

the value in the report is examining 

changes within each state, not 

comparing states’ recidivism rates: 

“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,” the report says.

3. The Bureau of Justice Statistics 

periodically issues national 

recidivism studies—the most 

recent were published in 2002 and 

2014—but the timeliness of these 

studies and the national sampling 

necessary to calculate the results 

limits the extent to which these 

reports can be used to assess the 

impact of local, state, and federal 

efforts to reduce recidivism. See 

Matthew R. Durose, Alexia D. 

Cooper, and Howard N. Snyder, 

Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 

30 States in 2005: Patterns from 2005 

to 2010 (Washington, DC: Bureau of 

Justice Statistics, 2014); and Patrick 

A. Langan and David J. Levin, 

Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 

1994 (Washington, DC: Bureau of 

Justice Statistics, 2002).

4. Due to their size, what happens 

in states such as California and 

Texas, for example, could easily 

skew recidivism trends nationally, 

obscuring important trends within 

other states or counties. See 

also Durose et al., Recidivism of 

Prisoners Released in 30 States in 

2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010, 

and Langan and Levin, Recidivism 

of Prisoners Released in 1994.

5. Scott Swain, interview by Jay 

Price, “Hundreds of Veterans 

Courts See Success but More Are 

Needed,” Morning Edition, NPR, 

January 3, 2017, http://www.npr.

org/2017/01/03/507983947/specialcourts-for-military-veterans-gaintraction.

6. Department of Veterans Affairs, 

Veterans Court Inventory 2014 

Update: Characteristics of and VA 

Involvement in Veterans Treatment 

Courts, Dockets, and Tracks from 

the Veterans Justice Outreach 

Specialist Perspective (Washington, 

DC: Department of Veterans 

Affairs, 2016), https://www.va.gov/

HOMELESS/docs/VTC-InventoryFactSheet-0216.pdf.

7. Juleyka Lantigua-Williams, “The 

Elusiveness of an Official ID After 

Prison,” The Atlantic, August 11, 

2016, https://www.theatlantic.

com/politics/archive/2016/08/theelusiveness-of-an-official-id-afterprison/495197/; Michelle Natividad 

Rodriguez and Beth Avery, Ban the 

Box: U.S. Cities, Counties, and States 

Adopt Fair Hiring Policies (New 

York: National Employment Law 

Project, 2017), available at nelp.org/

publication/ban-the-box-fair-chancehiring-state-and-local-guide.

8. James Bonta and Don A. 

Andrews, Risk-Need-Responsivity 

Model for Offender Assessment 

and Rehabilitation (Ottawa, 

Ontario, CA Public Safety Canada, 

2007), https://www.publicsafety.

gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/rsk-ndrspnsvty/rsk-nd-rspnsvty-eng.pdf.

9. Elizabeth Drake, Inventory of 

Evidence-Based and ResearchBased Programs for Adult 

Corrections, Document Number 

13-12-1901 (Olympia: Washington 

State Institute for Public Policy, 

2013); Patrick Clark, “Preventing 

Future Crime with Cognitive 

Behavioral Therapy,” NIJ Journal 

265, NCJ 229888 (Washington, 

DC: NIJ, 2010); E. K. Drake, “What 

Works” in Community Supervision: 

Interim Report, Document No. 

11-12-1201 (Olympia: Washington 

State Institute for Public Policy, 

December 2011).

10. The Council of State Governments 

Justice Center, “In Brief: Using 

Incentives and Sanctions to 

Change Behavior” (unpublished 

manuscript, May 4, 2017), 

Microsoft Word file.

11. Lois M. Davis et al., Evaluating 

the Effectiveness of Correctional 

Education: A Meta-Analysis of 

Programs That Provide Education 

to Incarcerated Adults (Santa 

Monica, California: The RAND 

Corporation, 2013), http://www.

rand.org/pubs/research_reports/

RR266.html.

12. Stefan LoBuglio and Andrea Lee, 

memorandum to Secretary John 

Tilley of the Kentucky Justice and 

Public Safety Cabinet, May 16, 

2017.

13. CSG Justice Center Staff, 

“Revamping Programs through 

Justice Reinvestment,” The 

Council of State Governments 

Justice Center, last modified July 

14, 2016, https://csgjusticecenter.

org/jr/north-carolina/posts/

revamping-programs-throughjustice-reinvestment/.

14. This information was compiled 

through a review of publicly 

available recidivism reports from 

corrections agencies in all 50 states. 

15. The Pew Charitable Trusts, 

31 States Reform Criminal 

Justice Policies Through Justice 

Reinvestment (Washington, 

DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts, 

2016), http://www.pewtrusts.

org/~/media/assets/2016/01/pspp_

jrireformmatrixoverview.pdf.

16. The Council of State Governments 

Justice Center, Reducing 

Recidivism: States Deliver Results

(New York: The Council of State 

Governments Justice Center, 

2017). See also: The Council 

of State Governments Justice 

Center, Reducing Recidivism: 

States Deliver Results (New 

York: The Council of State 

Governments Justice Center, 

2014), https://csgjusticecenter.

org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/

ReducingRecidivism_

StatesDeliverResults.pdf. 

17. Legislative Budget Board, 

Statewide Criminal and Juvenile 

Justice Recidivism and Revocation 

Rates, 2013, 2015, and 2016. Due to 

3-year tracking period in recidivism 

analysis, 2004–2013 was the 

most recent 10-year span of data 

available.

18. Michigan Department of 

Corrections, 2015 Statistical 

Report.

19. North Carolina Department of 

Public Safety, Annual Statistical 

Reports, FY2004–2005 through 

FY2014–2015. Confinements in 

Response to Violation (CRV) 

are not included. There were an 

additional 2,619 CRV admissions 

in 2015. People on DWI probation 

are included in this count.

Design: Sara Duell

Typeset in Galaxie Polaris by Chester 

Jenkins and Galaxie Copernicus by 

Chester Jenkins and Kris Sowersby

Icons: Amy Morgan

Photo pg 3: Shutterstock/tadamichi
The Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice 

Center is a national nonprofit organization 

that serves policymakers at the local, state, and 

federal levels from all branches of government. 

The CSG Justice Center provides practical, 

nonpartisan, research-driven strategies and 

tools to increase public safety and strengthen 

communities. To learn more about The Council 

of State Governments Justice Center, visit 

csgjusticecenter.org.

The National Reentry Resource Center (NRRC) was 

established in 2008 by the Second Chance Act 

(Public Law 110-199) and is administered by the 

U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice 

Assistance. The NRRC provides education, 

training, and technical assistance to state and 

local governments, tribal organizations, territories, 

community-based service providers, non-profit 

organizations, and correctional institutions 

working to improve reentry. To learn more about 

the NRRC, visit nationalreentryresourcecenter.org.

This project was supported by Grant No. 2016-MU-BX-K011 

awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Bureau 

of Justice Assistance is a component of the Department of 

Justice’s Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the 

Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, 

the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 

the Office for Victims of Crime, and the SMART Office. 

Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the 

author and do not necessarily represent the official position 

or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.