STATES DELIVER RESULTS

REDUCING RECIDIVISM

Efforts to reduce recidivism are grounded in the ability 

to accurately and consistently collect and analyze various 

forms of data. To that end, states have developed 

increasingly sophisticated and comprehensive recidivism 

tracking methods. By improving the accuracy and 

consistency of data collection, using more timely 

measures, and expanding the types of recidivism metrics 

that are tracked as well as the populations to which these 

metrics are applied, states are now better positioned 

to understand and respond to recidivism trends. This 

brief highlights seven states in which recidivism has 

significantly decreased according to several different measures. These same states have also experienced reductions 

in violent crime rates over the last decade. The recidivism data included in this brief is not meant to be compared 

state by state; it is meant to show individual examples of state successes across various recidivism measures. 

Methodology

This brief uses publicly available data from state agencies to identify achievements in recidivism reduction. Two types 

of recidivism are presented in this document—cohort-based and revocation-based. Cohort-based recidivism is 

measured by tracking a set group of people over a specified time period. This type of recidivism is always presented 

as a rate representing the proportion of people who recidivate as compared to the whole cohort. For example, a 

cohort-based analysis of prison releases may track all people released in 2010 and measure the rate of returns to 

prison within three years. If there were 100 people in the 2010 release cohort and 32 of them returned to prison 

within three years, the recidivism rate for this cohort would be 32 percent. 

Cohort-based recidivism tends to be a less timely indicator than revocation-based recidivism due to the time period 

necessary for tracking. In the example above that uses a cohort of people released from prison in 2010, it would not 

be possible to calculate a three-year recidivism rate until after the end of 2013. Compounded by the time needed to 

conduct the analysis and publish results, this three- to four-year lag is commonly present for recidivism rates of any 

given cohort. Despite this lag, cohort-based recidivism is an important measure because it indicates how well a system 

is doing at limiting people’s continued criminal justice involvement.

Revocation-based recidivism is measured by identifying people who are on either probation or parole who have 

had their supervision status terminated either due to a technical violation of the conditions of their supervision (e.g., 

failing a drug test or missing an appointment with a supervision officer) or because they were arrested and convicted 

of a new crime. 

JUNE 2017

STATES HIGHLIGHTED IN THIS BRIEF
2 | Reducing Recidivism

REARREST is the broadest measure of recidivism. Because not all rearrests result in a guilty finding or 

conviction, this metric may suggest that there is more criminal activity than there actually is. However, 

it is still an important measure of the volume of people returning to courts and county jails as well as 

the most comprehensive indicator of a person’s interaction with the criminal justice system.

RECONVICTION provides clear evidence that new criminal activity has been committed by someone 

with prior involvement in the criminal justice system and is considered the most accurate indicator of 

recidivism and public safety outcomes.

REINCARCERATION can be the result of both criminal and non-criminal behavior (e.g., incarceration 

for certain supervision violations), and generally refers to prison incarceration. Incarceration is the 

most costly criminal justice response available to states, and it also generates a significant financial 

burden for local jurisdictions, which are often responsible for incarcerating people who have been 

revoked. Due to the simplicity and availability of data needed for analysis, this measure is the most 

commonly used across states.

REVOCATION occurs when people who have been sentenced to probation supervision or who have 

been placed on probation or parole following a term of incarceration have their supervision status 

revoked and are incarcerated as a response to their behavior. Revocation can be the result of both 

criminal and non-criminal behavior (e.g., arrest or conviction for a new crime or the violation of 

supervision conditions), and has significant cost implications for local and state governments.

KEY MEASURES OF RECIDIVISM

While some states publish the rate of revocations from supervision, most states publish the exact number of probation 

and/or parole revocations that occur within each calendar year. For example, if 25 out of 100 people exiting probation 

were revoked, the exact number would be 25 revocations in a year while the rate of probation revocations would be 25 

percent. In some states, revocation rates are calculated as the total number of revocations out of the total supervision 

population on a given day. 

Probation revocation may or may not result in jail or prison incarceration time, while a parole revocation nearly 

always results in prison incarceration. Revocation-based recidivism is an important measure because it shows how a 

system responds to noncompliant behavior, which may or may not include criminal behavior, and because supervision 

revocations can be a driver of prison population growth.

Because the type of information that is tracked and published in each state varies, different definitions of recidivism 

and means of measuring that recidivism vary across the state examples presented in this brief. The volume and rate 

of revocation-based recidivism are presented when possible, and rates are consistently presented for cohort-based 

recidivism data. Each state example also includes a summary of the types of recidivism data collected by that state. 
Reducing Recidivism|3

RECIDIVISM-REDUCTION HIGHLIGHTS

TEXAS

–6 PERCENT

MICHIGAN

–20 PERCENT

REARREST

*Number of people on probation with a new felony conviction

ARIZONA

–21 PERCENT

RECONVICTION*

NORTH 

CAROLINA

–7 PERCENT

SOUTH 

CAROLINA

–21 PERCENT

TEXAS

–25 PERCENT

MICHIGAN

–20 PERCENT

ARIZONA

–13 PERCENT

REINCARCERATION

**Volume or rate of parole or probation revocations

REVOCATION**

NORTH 

CAROLINA

–42 PERCENT

MICHIGAN

–43 PERCENT

COLORADO

–24 PERCENT

ARIZONA

–29 PERCENT

SOUTH 

CAROLINA

–46 PERCENT

TEXAS

–33 PERCENT

GEORGIA

–35 PERCENT
4 | Reducing Recidivism

PEOPLE RELEASED FROM PRISON PEOPLE ON PAROLE PEOPLE ON PROBATION

3-YEAR FOLLOW-UP

REARREST

RECONVICTION

REINCARCERATION

ANNUAL REVOCATIONS

TECHNICAL VIOLATION NOT APPLICABLE

NEW CRIME NOT APPLICABLE

TOTAL NOT APPLICABLE

PUBLICLY AVAILABLE RECIDIVISM DATA

Between 2006 and 2015, the 

number of violent crimes reported 

per 100,000 residents declined 24 

percent from 543 to 410.4

24-percent decline in

violent crime rate

Between 2008 and 2016, the number 

of people on probation with a new 

felony conviction decreased 

from 3,174 to 2,496.3

21-percent decline in new

felony convictions

Between 2001 and 2010, the rate of 

people returning to prison within 

three years of release decreased 

from 42 percent to 37 percent.2

13-percent decline in threeyear reincarceration rate

ADDITIONAL PUBLIC SAFETY MEASURES

29-percent decline in probation revocations to prison

Between 2008 and 2016, the number of people revoked to prison for probation violations 

dropped from 6,801 to 4,804. During this same period, the total number of people on 

probation remained steady at approximately 42,000.1

ARIZONA

STATES DELIVER RESULTS:

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

6,801

5,942

4,913

4,120 3,794 4,108

4,694

5,252

4,804

People Admitted to Prison Due to Probation Violations
Arizona has received $8.8 million in federal 

investments that include 

• Two grants for nonprofit organizations to support

existing comprehensive, evidence-based mentoring

reentry services for people returning to their

communities from incarceration; and

• Two grants for a state agency and a nonprofit

organization to provide technology career training

to people in prison, with continued program and

service supports after they are released.

18 SECOND CHANCE

ACT GRANT AWARDS

In 2008, the Arizona legislature passed the Safe 

Communities Act, which

• Focused probation supervision on people assessed

as being at a high risk of reoffending;

• Created incentives for county probation agencies to

reduce revocations; and

• Established earned time credits for people on

probation who complied with the terms of their

supervision.

SAFE COMMUNITIES 

ACT OF 2008

Reducing Recidivism|5

“Arizona is safer today than it was 10 years ago because of the changes we’ve made to probation. As probation 

departments have adopted [evidence-based practices], the number of probation revocations and new felony 

convictions has fallen, which has saved taxpayers almost $400 million. Reinvesting 

a fraction of those savings in probation services could go a long way 

toward enhancing the safety of our communities.”

KATHY WATERS, 

DIRECTOR, ADULT PROBATION SERVICES

ARIZONA ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS

1. Arizona Adult Probation, Safer Communities Report FY2016.

2. Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys’ Advisory Council, Prisoners in Arizona: A 2014 Update on Selected Topics. 2010 was the latest year of recidivism data

available. To maintain a 10-year time span, 2001–2010 was used.

3. Arizona Adult Probation, Safer Communities Report FY2016.

4. FBI UCR Crime reports. 2015 was the most recent year of UCR crime data available.
6 | Reducing Recidivism

24-percent decline in the rate of probation revocations

Between 2006 and 2015, the rate of probation revocations dropped from 39 percent to 30 

percent. Revocations for new convictions fell by 11 percent, and revocations for technical 

violations of conditions of probation fell by 26 percent.1

ADDITIONAL PUBLIC SAFETY MEASURES

23-percent drop in

reincarceration for new crimes

Between 2006 and 2012, the threeyear reincarceration rate for a new 

crime declined from 18 percent 

to 14 percent.2

Steady rate of returns to 

prison for technical violations

From 2006 to 2012, the three-year 

reincarceration rate for technical violations 

of conditions of supervision remained 

steady at 35 percent of all prison releases.3

19-percent decline in violent

crime rate

Between 2006 and 2015, the 

number of violent crimes reported 

per 100,000 residents declined 19 

percent from 395 to 321.4

PEOPLE RELEASED FROM PRISON PEOPLE ON PAROLE PEOPLE ON PROBATION

3-YEAR FOLLOW-UP

REARREST

RECONVICTION

REINCARCERATION

ANNUAL REVOCATIONS

TECHNICAL VIOLATION NOT APPLICABLE

NEW CRIME NOT APPLICABLE

TOTAL NOT APPLICABLE

PUBLICLY AVAILABLE RECIDIVISM DATA

COLORADO

STATES DELIVER RESULTS:

0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

33%

6%

39%

32%

7%

39%

29%

6%

35%

25%

6%

31%

21%

6%

27%

20%

5%

25%

21%

5%

26%

22%

5%

27%

23%

5%

28%

24%

6%

30%

Revocations for new crimes Revocations for technical violations

Probation Revocation Rate

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%
2010 CRIMINAL 

JUSTICE REFORMS

17 SECOND CHANCE 

ACT GRANT AWARDS

1. Colorado State Court Administrator’s Office, Division of Probation Services, Pre-Release Termination and Post-Release Recidivism Rates of Colorado’s 

Probationers, FY2006–FY2015 Releases. Technical revocations are defined as a technical violation relating to a criminal offense.

2. Colorado Department of Corrections, Statistical Report 2015. The 23-percent drop in returns to prison for new crimes is the percentage change 

between 18 and 14 percent.

3. Ibid.

4. FBI UCR Crime reports. 2015 was the most recent year of UCR crime data available. 

In 2010, the Colorado legislature passed a number 

of significant policies to improve the state’s criminal 

justice system by

• Reducing penalties for low-level drug offenses and 

redirecting correctional savings to substance use 

treatment and behavioral health care;

• Requiring the Parole Board to consider a person’s 

mental health and substance use treatment needs 

prior to revocation for a technical violation of 

parole; and 

• Incentivizing people on probation to remain 

compliant with conditions of supervision by 

creating opportunities for early termination of their 

sentence.

Colorado has received nearly $9.5 million in federal 

investments that include

• Four grants for state and local agencies to 

implement or expand screening, assessment, and 

pre- and post-release treatment for people with 

co-occurring mental health and substance use 

disorders; and 

• Two grants for a state agency and a court to 

implement evidence-based supervision strategies 

for people under probation or parole supervision 

and assess outcomes.

Reducing Recidivism | 7

“Public safety is a fundamental responsibility of government. When people 

walk out of prison, they must have sufficient opportunities to reduce their risk of 

committing another crime and must be held accountable for their behavior. In 

Colorado, we recognize that reducing recidivism is an essential part of 

our broader efforts to keep our communities safe.”

RICK RAEMISCH 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
35-percent decline in parole revocations to prison

Between 2007 and 2016, the number of people revoked to prison for parole violations dropped 

from 3,516 to 2,298. The number of people revoked to prison for new convictions fell by 666, 

and the number of people revoked for technical violations of conditions of parole fell by 552.1

GEORGIA

STATES DELIVER RESULTS:

Steady reconviction rate 

for people on probation

Between 2004 and 2013, the rate of 

probationers reconvicted for a felony 

within three years of starting supervision 

remained flat at 23 percent.2

17-percent decline in 

probation revocations

Between 2007 and 2016, the probation 

population grew 17 percent, but the 

number of people on probation who were 

revoked to prison fell from 4,080 to 3,394.3

21-percent decline in 

violent crime rate

Between 2006 and 2015, the 

number of violent crimes reported 

per 100,000 residents declined 21 

percent from 478 to 378.4

ADDITIONAL PUBLIC SAFETY MEASURES

PUBLICLY AVAILABLE RECIDIVISM DATA PEOPLE RELEASED FROM PRISON PEOPLE ON PAROLE PEOPLE ON PROBATION

3-YEAR FOLLOW-UP

REARREST

RECONVICTION

REINCARCERATION

ANNUAL REVOCATIONS

TECHNICAL VIOLATION NOT APPLICABLE

NEW CRIME NOT APPLICABLE

TOTAL NOT APPLICABLE

8 | Reducing Recidivism

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

People Admitted to Prison Due to Parole Violations

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

3,516

2,885 2,878

1,461

2,335

2,627

2,059 2,024

2,311 2,298
“Georgia’s approach to running its criminal justice system is becoming 

more driven by where the data and research point us. Instead of reacting 

to the latest anecdote, we’re focused on tracking and driving down our 

recidivism rate and expanding effective tools for diversion, such as 

accountability courts. The result has been a safer state, fewer people in 

prison, and reduced costs for taxpayers.”

JUSTICE MICHAEL P. BOGGS

GEORGIA SUPREME COURT, 

CO-CHAIR CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM COUNCIL

Initially established in 2011, the Council conducted 

research on the state’s criminal justice system 

and proposed several packages of policy changes, 

including HB 1176 in 2012, which

• Prioritized prison beds for people who commit 

violent offenses; 

• Strengthened probation, drug courts, and other 

sentencing alternatives for people who commit 

nonviolent offenses through expansion of 

evidence-based practices and additional funding for 

behavioral health; and 

• Improved performance measurement by expanding 

the Department of Corrections’ processes to track 

and measure employment, substance use issues, 

and payment of victim restitution. 

Georgia has received $14.5 million in federal 

investments that include 

• Three statewide recidivism-reduction grants to 

help executive-branch policymakers and state 

corrections departments plan and implement 

system-wide reforms to reduce recidivism; and

• Four grants to assist state and local agencies in 

planning and implementing collaborative pilot 

projects to measure the effectiveness of addressing 

key challenges faced by people returning to their 

communities after incarceration, focusing on those 

who are at a medium to high risk of reoffending.

GEORGIA COUNCIL 

ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE 

REFORM

24 SECOND CHANCE 

ACT GRANT AWARDS

Reducing Recidivism | 9

1. Georgia Department of Corrections, “3-Year Felony Reconviction Rates for Calendar Years 2003 to 2013.”

2. Georgia Department of Corrections, Inmate Statistical Profile FY2007–FY2016. 

3. Ibid.

4. FBI UCR Crime reports. 2015 was the most recent year of UCR crime data available. 
MICHIGAN

STATES DELIVER RESULTS:

43-percent decline in people returning to prison from parole

Between 2006 and 2015, the number of people returning to prison from parole with new 

convictions dropped 43 percent, from 2,019 to 1,159. During this period, the total parole 

population declined only 16 percent, from 16,018 people to 13,472.1

ADDITIONAL PUBLIC SAFETY MEASURES

20-percent decline in rearrest

rate for people on parole

The proportion of all parolees

rearrested within one year of their 

release from prison fell from 30 

percent in 2008 to 24 percent in 2011.2

26-percent decline in

violent crime rate

Between 2006 and 2015, the number 

of violent crimes reported per 100,000 

residents declined 26 percent 

from 564 to 416.4

20-percent decline in threeyear reincarceration rate

Between 2003 and 2012, the rate of 

people returning to prison within 

three years of release decreased 

from 39 percent to 31 percent.3

PEOPLE RELEASED FROM PRISON PEOPLE ON PAROLE PEOPLE ON PROBATION

3-YEAR FOLLOW-UP

REARREST

RECONVICTION

REINCARCERATION

ANNUAL REVOCATIONS

TECHNICAL VIOLATION NOT APPLICABLE

NEW CRIME NOT APPLICABLE

TOTAL NOT APPLICABLE

10 | Reducing Recidivism

PUBLICLY AVAILABLE RECIDIVISM DATA

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

People on Parole Returning to Prison with New Convictions

2,019 1,968

1,793

1,523 1,406 1,387 1,266

1,159

1,993 2,029
Reducing Recidivism | 11

1. Michigan Department of Corrections, 2015 Statistical Report.

2. The Council of State Governments Justice Center, “Fifth Presentation to the Michigan Law Revision Commission,” https://csgjusticecenter.org/jr/

michigan/publications/michigan-law-revision-commission-fifth-presentation/. 2008–2011 were the most current years available for recidivism 

tracking at the time of analysis. 

3. Michigan Department of Corrections, 2015 Statistical Report. Parole revocation rate is calculated by the total number of parole returns in a year 

divided by the average parole population during that year. 

4. FBI UCR Crime reports. 2015 was the most recent year of UCR crime data available. 

“We gathered input and leveraged resources from across the state that went beyond 

just criminal justice to create reentry programs that are truly effective. Thanks 

to our focus on ‘offender success,’ we improved and expanded job-training 

and education programs for people in prison while giving them the 

support services they need in the community to ensure a 

safe transition and long-term self-sufficiency.”

HEIDI WASHINGTON,

DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS

In 2005, the Michigan Department of Corrections 

implemented the Prisoner Reentry Initiative, which 

created a number of policies that required

• Forming a Transition Accountability Plan to assess 

a person’s risks, needs, and strengths to identify 

ways to reduce risk, address needs, and build upon 

strengths for sustained success;

• Using an integrated, interdisciplinary approach 

to reentry across health care, behavioral health, 

employment, education, and family support 

agencies; and

• Creating partnerships across corrections, 

probation, and parole departments to improve 

continuity of services after release.

Michigan has received nearly $7.4 million in federal 

investments that include

• One grant for the Department of Corrections to 

establish career training programs in prisons to 

prepare people to succeed in technology-based 

jobs and connect them to post-release, communitybased services; and

• One grant for a county to expand programs that 

provide substance use treatment and parenting 

programs for people who are incarcerated, as well 

as treatment and other services to the participants’ 

children and family members. 

14 SECOND CHANCE 

ACT GRANT AWARDS

PRISONER REENTRY 

INITIATIVE
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC SAFETY MEASURES

46-percent decrease in 

probation revocation rate

The proportion of people exiting 

probation who were revoked declined 

from 34 percent of probation exits in 

2006 to 18 percent in 2015.2

7-percent decline in two-year 

reincarceration rate

Between 2003 and 2012, the number 

of people released from prison who 

returned within two years decreased 

slightly from 23 percent to 21 percent.3

26-percent decline in 

violent crime rate

Between 2006 and 2015, the 

number of violent crimes reported 

per 100,000 residents declined 26 

percent from 475 to 347.4

42-percent reduction in probation revocations

Between 2006 and 2015, the number of people admitted to prison for probation revocations 

declined 42 percent, from 14,371 to 7,898. During the same period, the total number of people 

admitted to prison decreased 10 percent, from 26,070 to 23,367.1

NORTH CAROLINA

STATES DELIVER RESULTS:

PEOPLE RELEASED FROM PRISON PEOPLE ON PAROLE PEOPLE ON PROBATION

2-YEAR FOLLOW-UP

REARREST

RECONVICTION

REINCARCERATION

ANNUAL REVOCATIONS

TECHNICAL VIOLATION NOT APPLICABLE

NEW CRIME NOT APPLICABLE

TOTAL NOT APPLICABLE

PUBLICLY AVAILABLE RECIDIVISM DATA

12 | Reducing Recidivism

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

16,000

14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0

14,371 14,330 14,494

15,976

14,718 15,118

11,154

7,436 7,440 7,898

People Admitted to Prison Due to Probation Revocations
In 2011, North Carolina enacted a significant set of 

criminal justice system policy changes that

• Provided substance use treatment, cognitive 

behavioral programs, and other evidence-based 

programming to people on supervision who have 

the greatest need for treatment and are at the 

highest risk of reoffending;

• Empowered probation officers to use swift and 

certain jail sanctions in lieu of full revocation to 

hold people on probation accountable in response 

to violations of conditions of supervision; and

• Required mandatory supervision for everyone 

convicted of felonies upon release from prison to 

help reduce recidivism. 

North Carolina has received $3.6 million in federal 

investments that include

• Two grants for local jurisdictions to implement or 

expand screening, assessment, and pre- and postrelease treatment for people with co-occurring 

mental health and substance use disorders; 

• Two grants for local jurisdictions to implement pilot 

projects addressing the challenges faced by people 

returning to their communities after incarceration; 

and

• One grant for a state agency to develop more 

effective supervision practices that address the 

needs of people under correctional supervision 

who have serious and persistent mental health 

concerns. 

JUSTICE 

REINVESTMENT 

ACT OF 2011

9 SECOND CHANCE 

ACT GRANT AWARDS

“To reduce recidivism, we must change the culture of corrections. That means 

looking to the evidence on what works and adjusting how we do business. 

Today we work with people individually to understand what caused them to 

make poor decisions, engage and motivate them to change their behavior, 

and help them learn the skills they will need to be safe and successful in the 

community. As a result, in North Carolina we have experienced both cost 

savings and improved public safety.”

W. DAVID GUICE, CHIEF DEPUTY SECRETARY, 

ADULT CORRECTION AND JUVENILE JUSTICE

1. 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 probation for a Driving While Impaired (DWI) offense 

are included in this count. 

2. Ibid.

3. North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, Correctional Program Evaluation: Offenders Placed on Probation or Released from Prison 

in Fiscal Year 2010/11 and 2013 reports. 

4. FBI UCR Crime reports. 2015 was the most recent year of UCR crime data available.

Reducing Recidivism | 13
SOUTH CAROLINA

STATES DELIVER RESULTS:

46-percent decline in technical revocations 

Between 2010 and 2015, the number of revocations for technical violations of conditions of 

supervision that resulted in admission to prison decreased 46 percent, from 3,293 to 1,788. 

Revocations not resulting in admission to prison also declined 46 percent, from 1,490 to 810.1

ADDITIONAL PUBLIC SAFETY MEASURES

21-percent decline in threeyear reincarceration rate

Between 2004 and 2013, the rate of 

people returning to prison within three 

years of release decreased 21 percent, 

from 33 percent to 26 percent.2

25-percent drop in incarceration 

rate for people on supervision

The rate of incarceration within three 

years of starting supervision declined from 

approximately 20 percent for the 2010 

cohort to 15 percent for the 2012 cohort.3

16-percent decrease in 

violent crime rate

Between 2010 and 2015, the number 

of violent crimes reported per 

100,000 residents declined 

16 percent, from 602 to 505.4

14 | Reducing Recidivism

PEOPLE RELEASED FROM PRISON PEOPLE ON PAROLE PEOPLE ON PROBATION

3-YEAR FOLLOW-UP

REARREST

RECONVICTION

REINCARCERATION

ANNUAL REVOCATIONS

TECHNICAL VIOLATION NOT APPLICABLE

NEW CRIME NOT APPLICABLE

TOTAL NOT APPLICABLE

PUBLICLY AVAILABLE RECIDIVISM DATA

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

5,000

4,500

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

3,293

 2,714

 2,179 

1,682 1,750 1,788

 1,490

1,427

 1,143

944 855 810

4,783

4,141

3,322

2,626 2,605 2,598

Number of Probation and Parole Technical Revocations

Revocations resulting in prison admission Revocations not resulting in prison admission
Reducing Recidivism | 15

In 2010, the South Carolina legislature passed an 

omnibus bill that codified criminal justice system 

changes by

• Mandating post-release supervision, authorizing 

earned discharge, enhancing the available 

administrative responses to supervision violations, 

and using risk assessments to guide supervision 

decisions; and

• Restructuring penalties for certain violent, property, 

and drug offenses to reserve prison space for 

people convicted of more serious offenses.

South Carolina has received nearly $800,000 in federal 

investments that include 

• One grant for a nonprofit organization to provide 

pre- and post-release mentoring and transitional 

services to people; and

• One grant for the Department of Probation, Parole 

and Pardon Services to test innovative approaches 

to improve outcomes for people under probation 

supervision and implement evidence-based 

strategies.

CRIME REDUCTION & 

SENTENCING REFORM 

ACT 

2 SECOND CHANCE 

ACT GRANT AWARDS

1. Urban Institute, “Assessing the Impact of South Carolina’s Parole and Probation Reforms,” April 2017. People on probation and parole supervision 

are overseen by the South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services. 

2. South Carolina Department of Corrections, “Return to Prison Rates of Inmates Released during FY1993–FY2013.” 2013 was the most recent threeyear recidivism data available. Includes people returning to prison on convictions for crimes committed prior to original incarceration.

3. Urban Institute, “Assessing the Impact of South Carolina’s Parole and Probation Reforms,” April 2017. 

4. FBI UCR Crime reports. 2015 was the most recent year of UCR crime data available.
33-percent decline in revocations to prison for people on parole

Between 2007 and 2016, the number of people revoked to prison from parole declined 33 

percent, from 9,381 to 6,272. During that time, the parole population increased 14 percent, from 

76,601 to 87,304 people.1

ADDITIONAL PUBLIC SAFETY MEASURES

25-percent decline in threeyear reincarceration rate

Between 2004 and 2013, the rate of 

people returning to prison within three 

years of release decreased 25 percent, 

from 28 percent to 21 percent.2

6-percent decline in 

rearrest rate

Between 2004 and 2013, the three-year 

rearrest rate for people released from 

prison declined slightly, from 

49 percent to 46 percent.3

20-percent decline in 

violent crime rate

Between 2006 and 2015, the number 

of violent crimes reported per 

100,000 residents fell 20 percent, 

from 517 incidents to 412.4

PEOPLE RELEASED FROM PRISON PEOPLE ON PAROLE PEOPLE ON PROBATION

3-YEAR FOLLOW-UP

REARREST

RECONVICTION

REINCARCERATION

ANNUAL REVOCATIONS

TECHNICAL VIOLATION NOT APPLICABLE

NEW CRIME NOT APPLICABLE

TOTAL NOT APPLICABLE

PUBLICLY AVAILABLE RECIDIVISM DATA

16 | Reducing Recidivism

TEXAS

STATES DELIVER RESULTS:

10,000

9,000

8,000

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

Number of People Revoked to Prison from Parole

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
In 2007, the Texas legislature adopted a justice 

reinvestment framework that included policies that

• Enhanced the use of parole for people at a low 

risk of reoffending and expanded the capacity of 

treatment and diversion programs;

• Incentivized counties to create progressive 

sanctioning models for effective responses on 

probation; and

• Expanded the capacity of substance use treatment 

programs and the use of intermediate sanction 

facilities to divert people from prison.

Texas has received $16 million in federal investments 

that include

• Two grants for nonprofit organizations to 

support young parents through programs that 

incorporate mentoring and transitional reentry 

services, parenting skills development, and family 

engagement; 

• Two grants for a court and a county to collaborate 

with corrections agencies to provide reentry services 

to people returning to their communities in a 

geographic area where there is a disproportionate 

number of people being released from incarceration; 

and

• Three grants for local agencies to establish or 

enhance programs that provide family-based 

substance use treatment for people who are 

incarcerated. 

35 SECOND CHANCE 

ACT GRANT AWARDS

JUSTICE REINVESTMENT 

POLICY FRAMEWORK

“Rather than build new prisons, our state chose to invest in treatment and 

diversion alternatives. These investments have helped to reduce technical 

revocations from parole and probation and have provided additional 

treatment capacity, resulting in a reduction of our prison population by 

10,000 people. These approaches—along with others—continue to pay 

dividends: we have closed four prisons since 2011 

and plan to close four more this summer.”

BRYAN COLLIER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

1. Legislative Budget Board, Statewide Criminal and Juvenile Justice Recidivism and Revocation Rates, 2013, 2015, and 2016. Due to three-year tracking 

period in a recidivism analysis, 2004–2013 was the most recent 10–year span of data available. 

2. Ibid. 

3. Ibid.

4. FBI UCR Crime reports. 2015 was the most recent year of UCR crime data available.

Reducing Recidivism | 17
18 | Reducing Recidivism

Percent

Change

Volume

Change

Percentage

Point Change

Year

Span Definitions

–43% –860 N/A 2006–2015 Defined as the number of people revoked to prison for 

parole violations with a new conviction

–20% N/A –6 points 2008–2011

Defined as the number of people with a new arrest within 

1 year of being released to parole out of the total number 

released to parole

–20% N/A –8 points 2003–2012 Defined as the number of people on probation with a new 

felony conviction

Parole Revocations to 

Prison

Parole Rearrest Rate

3-year Reincarceration 

Rate

MICHIGAN

Percent

Change

Volume

Change

Percentage

Point Change

Year

Span Definitions

–35% –1,218 N/A 2007–2016 Defined as the number of people revoked to prison for 

parole violations 

–17% –686 N/A 2007–2016 Defined as the number of people revoked to prison for 

probation violations

0% N/A 0 points 2004–2013 Defined as the number of people reconvicted for a felony 

offense within three years of starting probation

Parole Revocations to 

Prison

Probation Revocations 

to Prison

Probation Reconviction 

Rate

GEORGIA

Percent

Change

Volume

Change

Percentage

Point Change

Year

Span Definitions

–24% N/A –9 points 2006–2015 Defined as the number of people revoked from probation 

out of the total number terminated from probation

–23% N/A –4 points 2006–2012

Defined as the number of people returning to prison for 

new criminal activity within 3 years of release out of the 

total number released

0% N/A 0 points 2006–2012

Defined as the number of people returning to prison for a 

technical violation of supervision within 3 years of release 

out of the total number released

Rate of Probation 

Revocations

3-year Reincarceration 

Rate for New Crime

3-Year Reincarceration 

Rate for Technical 

Violations

COLORADO

Percent

Change

Volume

Change

Percentage

Point Change

Year

Span Definitions

–29% –1,997 N/A 2008–2016 Defined as the number of people revoked to prison for 

probation violations 

–13% N/A –5 points 2001–2010 Defined as the number of people returning to prison within 

3 years of release out of the total number released

–21% –678 N/A 2008–2016 Defined as the number of people on probation with a new 

felony conviction

Probation Revocations 

to Prison

Rate of Probation 

Revocations

2-year Reincarceration 

Rate

ARIZONA

Featured States at a Glance
Reducing Recidivism | 19

Percent

Change

Volume

Change

Percentage

Point Change

Year

Span Definitions

–46% –2,185 N/A 2010–2015 Defined as the number of people revoked from supervision 

for a technical violation of conditions of supervision

–21% N/A –7 points 2004–2013 Defined as the number of people returning to prison within 

3 years of released out of the total number released

–25% N/A –5 points 2010–2012

Defined as the number of people incarcerated within 3 

years of starting supervision out of the total number 

starting supervision

Technical Revocations 

of Supervision

3-year Reincarceration 

Rate

Supervision 

Incarceration Rate

SOUTH 

CAROLINA

Percent

Change

Volume

Change

Percentage

Point Change

Year

Span Definitions

–33% –3,109 N/A 2007–2016 Defined as the number of people revoked to prison for 

parole violations

–25% N/A –7 points 2004–2013 Defined as the number of people returning to prison within 

3 years of release out of the total number released

–6% N/A –3 points 2004–2013

Defined as the number of people with a new arrest within 

3 years of release from prison out of the total number 

released from prison

Parole Revocations to 

Prison

3-year Reincarceration 

Rate

3-year Rearrest Rate

TEXAS

Percent

Change

Volume

Change

Percentage

Point Change

Year

Span Definitions

–46% –2,185 N/A 2010–2015 Defined as the number of people revoked from supervision 

for a technical violation of conditions of supervision

–21% N/A –7 points 2004–2013 Defined as the number of people returning to prison within 

3 years of released out of the total number released

–25% N/A –5 points 2010–2012

Defined as the number of people incarcerated within 3 

years of starting supervision out of the total number 

starting supervision

Technical Revocations 

of Supervision

3-year Reincarceration 

Rate

Supervision 

Incarceration Rate

SOUTH 

CAROLINA

Percent

Change

Volume

Change

Percentage

Point Change

Year

Span Definitions

–42% –6,473 N/A 2006–2015 Defined as the number of people revoked to prison for 

probation violations 

–46% N/A –15 points 2006–2015 Defined as the number of people revoked from probation 

out of the total number terminated from probation

–7% N/A –2 points 2003–2012 Defined as the number of people returning to prison within 

2 years of release out of the total number released

Probation Revocations 

to Prison

Rate of Probation 

Revocations

2-year Reincarceration 

Rate

NORTH 

CAROLINA
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. Points of view, recommendations, 

or findings stated in this document are those of the authors and 

do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of The 

Council of State Governments Justice Center or The Council of 

State Governments’ members. 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.