Retroactivity & Recidivism: 

The Drugs Minus Two Amendment

U.S. Sentencing Commission

July 2020
Charles R. Breyer

Commissioner

Danny C. Reeves

Commissioner

Patricia K. Cushwa

Ex Officio

Candice C. Wong

Ex Officio 

U.S. Sentencing Commission

One Columbus Circle, N.E.

Suite 2-500, South Lobby

Washington, DC 20002

www.ussc.gov

Kenneth P. Cohen 

Staff Director

Glenn R. Schmitt

Director

Office of Research and Data

July 2020
Kim Steven Hunt, Ph.D.

Senior Research Associate

Office of Research and Data

David Rutter, M.P.A.

Research Associate

Office of Research and Data

Todd Kostyshak, J.D.

Senior Attorney

Office of Education and Sentencing Practice

1 INTRODUCTION

2 THE DRUGS MINUS TWO AMENDMENT

2...........Guideline Changes Made by the Drugs Minus Two Amendment 

3...........Retroactive Application of the Drugs Minus Two Amendment

6 KEY FINDINGS

7 METHODOLOGY

7...........Recidivism 

8...........Study Group 

11.........Data Analysis 

11 DETAILED RECIDIVISM FINDINGS

11...........Overview of Recidivism Study Findings

14...........Recidivism by Offender Characteristics

19...........Recidivism by Other Characteristics

22 DETAILED RECIDIVISM FINDINGS FOR 

SPECIFIC DRUG TYPES

27 CONCLUSION

28 APPENDIX A

29 APPENDIX B

36 APPENDIX C

40 APPENDIX D

44 APPENDIX E

52 ENDNOTES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

United States Sentencing Commission

1

On April 10, 2014, the United States Sentencing Commission voted 

unanimously to reduce the applicable sentencing guideline range for most 

federal drug trafficking offenses.1 The amendment, often referred to as the 

“Drugs Minus Two Amendment,”2 reduced by two levels the base offense 

levels assigned by the Drug Quantity Table for each drug quantity, across all 

drug types.3 The amendment became effective November 1, 2014.

Separately, on July 18, 2014, the Commission unanimously voted to give 

retroactive effect to the Drugs Minus Two Amendment,4 thereby allowing 

eligible offenders serving a previously imposed term of imprisonment to 

file a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a sentence reduction.5 The 

Commission’s action allowed courts to begin considering such motions on 

November 1, 2014, but delayed the effective date of any sentence reduction 

orders until a year later, November 1, 2015.6 Since then, courts have granted 

30,852 retroactivity motions, resulting in an estimated average sentence 

reduction of 17.2 percent, from 146 to 121 months.7

The Drugs Minus Two Amendment was the third significant reduction in 

drug penalties made by the Commission in seven years. The previous two 

pertained solely to crack cocaine offenses. First, in 2007, the Commission 

reduced by two levels the base offense levels assigned by the Drug 

Quantity Table for each quantity of crack cocaine (the “Crack Minus Two 

Amendment”). Then, in 2010, the Commission incorporated the statutory 

penalty reductions provided by the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (the “FSA”) 

into the Drug Quantity Table (the “FSA Guideline Amendment”). The 

Commission voted to give retroactive effect to the guideline amendment in 

both instances and followed each with a study on the effect of retroactivity 

on recidivism. Both times the Commission found no statistically significant 

difference between the recidivism rates for offenders who received a sentence 

reduction and offenders who had served their full sentences before the 

guideline reductions took effect.

Consistent with its recent past practice, the Commission has performed an 

analysis of the impact that the retroactive application of the Drugs Minus 

Two Amendment had on recidivism. Specifically, this publication compares 

the recidivism rate of offenders released pursuant to the retroactive 

application of the Drugs Minus Two Amendment with the recidivism rate of 

similar offenders who completed their full sentences and were released prior 

to the effective date of the Drugs Minus Two Amendment.

INTRODUCTION

There was no statistically significant difference in the recidivism rates 

of offenders released early pursuant to retroactive application of the 

Drugs Minus Two Amendment and a comparable group of offenders who 

served their full sentences. This outcome may be attributed, at least 

in part, to the eligibility criteria required by the Commission, and the 

careful consideration of those criteria by judges – particularly public 

safety considerations – in exercising their discretion to grant or deny 

retroactivity motions.

FINDING:
United States Sentencing Commission

2

Guideline Changes Made by the Drugs Minus Two Amendment

On November 1, 2014, the Drugs Minus Two Amendment took effect and 

reduced the guidelines applicable to most drug trafficking offenses by 

lowering the base offense levels assigned by the Drug Quantity Table in 

§2D1.1(c).8 For the great majority of drug trafficking offenders sentenced 

under §2D1.1 (Unlawful Manufacturing, Importing, Exporting, or Trafficking 

(Including Possession with Intent to Commit These Offenses); Attempt or 

Conspiracy), the quantity of drugs for which the defendant is held responsible 

is the most important factor in determining an offender’s sentencing 

guideline range.9 Based on an analysis of the 24,968 offenders sentenced 

under the drug trafficking guideline in fiscal year 2012, the Commission 

estimated that going forward the amendment would affect the sentences of 

69.9 percent of drug trafficking offenders, and their average sentence would 

be reduced by 11 months—or 17.7 percent—from 62 months to 51 months.

Specifically, the Drugs Minus Two Amendment changed how the Drug 

Quantity Table incorporates the statutory mandatory minimum penalties 

for drug trafficking offenses. Prior to the amendment, the Drug Quantity 

Table provided base offense levels corresponding to guideline ranges that 

were slightly above the statutory mandatory minimum penalties “to permit 

some downward adjustment for defendants who plead guilty or otherwise 

cooperate with authorities.”10 Accordingly, offenses involving drug quantities 

that triggered a five-year (60 month) statutory mandatory minimum were 

assigned a base offense level of 26, which corresponds to a guideline range of 

63 to 78 months for a defendant in Criminal History Category I.11 Similarly, 

offenses that trigger a ten-year (120 month) statutory mandatory minimum 

were assigned a base offense level of 32, which corresponds to a guideline 

range of 121 to 151 months for a defendant in Criminal History Category I.12 

The base offense levels for drug quantities above and below the mandatory 

minimum threshold quantities were extrapolated upward and downward, 

respectively, to set guideline ranges for all drug quantities,13 with a minimum 

base offense level of six and a maximum base offense level of 38 for most drug 

types.14 

The Drugs Minus Two Amendment reduced by two levels the offense levels 

assigned to the quantities that trigger the statutory mandatory minimum 

penalties, resulting in corresponding guideline ranges that include the 

mandatory minimum penalties. Accordingly, offenses involving drug 

quantities that trigger a five-year (60 month) statutory mandatory minimum 

THE DRUGS MINUS TWO AMENDMENT
United States Sentencing Commission

3

were assigned a base offense level of 24, which corresponds to a guideline 

range of 51 to 63 months for a defendant in Criminal History Category I, 

and offenses involving drug quantities that trigger a ten-year (120 month) 

statutory mandatory minimum were assigned a base offense level of 30, 

which corresponds to a guideline range of 97 to 121 months for a defendant 

in Criminal History Category I. The base offense levels for drug quantities 

above and below the mandatory minimum threshold quantities were again 

extrapolated upward and downward, respectively, to set guideline ranges for 

all drug quantities.15

The Commission’s decision was informed in significant part by its experience 

with the Crack Minus Two Amendment, which was similar in nature to the 

Drugs Minus Two Amendment. First, recent experience with the Crack 

Minus Two Amendment persuaded the Commission that it was no longer 

necessary to set the base offense levels above the mandatory minimum 

penalties to provide adequate incentives to plead guilty or otherwise 

cooperate with authorities. The Commission cited the stable rates at which 

crack cocaine defendants pled guilty or provided substantial assistance to the 

government after the Crack Minus Two Amendment took effect in support of 

this conclusion.16

Second, the Commission relied on its recidivism study of the Crack Minus 

Two Amendment to predict that modest reductions in drug trafficking 

penalties such as those provided by the Drugs Minus Two Amendment would 

not increase recidivism and jeopardize public safety.17 The Commission 

noted that it had compared the recidivism rates of offenders who were 

released early as a result of retroactive application of the Crack Minus Two 

Amendment with a control group of offenders who had served their full terms 

of imprisonment and detected no statistically significant difference in the 

rates of recidivism for the two groups after two years, and again after five 

years.18

Retroactive Application of the Drugs Minus Two Amendment

The Commission was statutorily required to consider whether, and to what 

extent, to give retroactive effect to the Drugs Minus Two Amendment. 

Whenever the Commission reduces the term of imprisonment recommended 

in the guidelines applicable to a particular offense, the Commission is 

directed in 28 U.S.C. § 994(u) to determine in what circumstances, and by 

what amount, the sentences of offenders serving terms of imprisonment may 
United States Sentencing Commission

4

be reduced.19 Furthermore, courts are statutorily bound by the Commission’s 

decision regarding retroactivity.20 Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), courts 

may not apply a guideline amendment retroactively unless the Commission 

has designated that amendment for retroactive application, and any such 

reduction must be “consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the 

Sentencing Commission.”21

The applicable policy statement governing retroactivity is found in the 

Guidelines Manual at USSG §1B1.10 (Reduction in Term of Imprisonment 

as a Result of Amended Guideline Range (Policy Statement)).22 Section 

1B1.10 lists the amendments that courts may apply retroactively, places 

certain prohibitions and limitations on the extent of any reduction granted, 

and sets forth factors courts must consider in determining whether, and to 

what extent, a reduction in sentence is warranted. One notable limitation 

on eligibility found in §1B1.10 is the requirement that the retroactive 

amendment must have had the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable 

guideline range.23 This limitation effectively excluded career offenders,24

among others,25 from retroactive application of the Drugs Minus Two 

Amendment. As reflected in other Commission studies, career offenders tend 

to recidivate at higher rates than non-career offenders.26 

Another requirement in §1B1.10 particularly relevant to the study of 

recidivism is the requirement that the sentencing judge individually assess 

the risk to public safety in every case before granting a sentence reduction. 

The commentary to the policy statement expressly provides that “the court 

shall consider the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or 

the community that may be posed by a reduction in the defendant’s term of 

imprisonment in determining: (I) whether such a reduction is warranted, 

and (II) the extent of such reduction.”27

In making the Drugs Minus Two Amendment retroactive, the Commission 

also added an enhanced public safety precaution by delaying the effective 

date of any sentence reduction orders by one year, until November 1, 2015. 

At the time it was considering retroactivity, the Commission estimated that 

approximately 46,000 offenders could potentially benefit from retroactive 

application of the Drugs Minus Two Amendment, with an average sentence 

reduction of almost 19 percent. In light of the large number of cases 

potentially involved, the Commission concluded that a one-year delay in 

the effective date of any sentence reduction orders was needed for three 

reasons, each related to public safety.28 First, the delay would give courts 

“adequate time to obtain and review the information necessary to make an 
United States Sentencing Commission

5

individualized determination in each case of whether a sentence reduction 

is appropriate.”29 Second, the delay would “ensure that, to the extent 

practicable, all offenders who are to be released have the opportunity to 

participate in reentry programs and transitional services, such as placement 

in halfway houses, while still in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons, 

which increases their likelihood of successful reentry to society and thereby 

promotes public safety.”30 Third, the delay would “permit those agencies 

that will be responsible for offenders after their release to prepare for the 

increased responsibility.”31

Sentencing data indicates that courts followed the dictates of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2) and §1B1.10 to consider public safety in exercising their 

discretion regarding retroactivity. Of the 50,676 motions for retroactive 

application of the Drugs Minus Two Amendment that have been decided, 

18,913 have been denied, representing over one-third (37.3%) of the motions 

filed. Courts denied 4,649 motions based on the merits of the petition after 

considering the factors set forth in §1B1.10.32 Particularly noteworthy is 

that courts expressly cited protection of the public in 552 denials, and postsentencing or post-conviction conduct in 362 denials.

This report focuses on 30,852 drug trafficking offenders who received a 

reduction in their term of imprisonment due to retroactive application of the 

Drugs Minus Two Amendment, resulting in an estimated average sentence 

reduction of 25 months (17.2%), from 146 months to 121 months. For this 

report, the Commission studied the recidivism of two groups of offenders. 

First, the Commission examined the recidivism of offenders who received 

sentence reductions through retroactive application of the Drugs Minus 

Two Amendment (the “Retroactivity Group”). Because of these sentence 

reductions, the offenders in the Retroactivity Group were released prior to 

the expiration of their original sentence. Second, the Commission studied 

the recidivism of offenders who would have been eligible for sentence 

reductions under the Drugs Minus Two Amendment but were released 

before retroactivity of the Drug Minus Two Amendment took effect (the 

“Comparison Group”). 

The Retroactivity Group and the Comparison Group were matched on offense 

and offender characteristics to produce two groups which are very similar on 

important factors related to the likelihood of recidivism. Once these groups 

were matched and offense and offender characteristics were accounted for, 

the Commission found there was no statistically significant difference in the 

recidivism rates of the two groups, as discussed below.
United States Sentencing Commission

6

KEY FINDINGS

• There was no statistically significant difference in the recidivism 

rates of the Retroactivity Group (offenders who were released on average 

37 months early through retroactive application of the Drugs Minus 

Two Amendment) and the Comparison Group (offenders who would 

have been eligible for retroactivity but had served their sentences before 

retroactivity took effect). Over a three-year period following their release 

from prison, the Retroactivity Group had a recidivism rate of 27.9 percent 

compared to 30.5 percent for the Comparison Group. This outcome may 

be attributed, at least in part, to the eligibility criteria required by the 

Commission, and the careful consideration of those criteria by judges – 

particularly public safety considerations – in exercising their discretion to 

grant or deny retroactivity motions.

• The similarity in the recidivism rates of the Retroactivity Group and 

the Comparison Group held true across all drug types. Among offenders 

convicted of offenses with the same primary drug type—Powder Cocaine, 

Crack Cocaine, Heroin, Marijuana, Methamphetamine, and Other 

Drugs—offenders in the Retroactivity Group had similar recidivism 

rates to offenders in the Comparison Group, although the recidivism 

levels varied by drug type. The highest rates were observed among Crack 

Cocaine offenders (35.1% in the Retroactivity Group and 37.5% in the 

Comparison Group) and the lowest rates among Powder Cocaine offenders 

(19.5% in the Retroactivity Group and 22.3% in the Comparison Group). 

• For both the Retroactivity and Comparison Groups, approximately 

one-third of offenders who did recidivate (34.4% and 33.1%, respectively) 

had a court or supervision violation as their most serious recidivism 

event.33

• Among offenders who did recidivate, the median time to recidivism 

was approximately 15 months for both groups.

There was no statistically 

significant difference in 

the recidivism rates of the 

Retroactivity Group and the 

Comparison Group.

“
United States Sentencing Commission

7

METHODOLOGY

This study examines 7,121 federal offenders who received a reduced sentence 

through retroactive application of the Drugs Minus Two Amendment and a 

comparable group of 7,132 offenders who were released from federal prison 

during the 18 months prior to November 1, 2015, when the reduction orders 

could first take effect, and:

• who are United States citizens;

• who were not reported dead, escaped, or detained; 

• whose pre-sentence investigation report was submitted to the 

Commission; and

• who have valid FBI numbers.

The data was supplemented with Federal Bureau of Investigation criminal 

history records information to measure offenders’ recidivism rates.34

Recidivism

For purposes of this study, and consistent with the Commission’s recidivism 

studies of the Crack Minus Two Amendment and the FSA Guideline 

Amendment, recidivism is defined as any of the following criminal 

record events occurring within a three-year period following release from 

incarceration:

• a re-conviction for a new offense;

• a re-arrest with no case disposition information available; or 

• a violation or revocation of an offender’s supervised release.

Thus, recidivism events include all reports of both arrests for new crimes that 

did not result in acquittal or dismissal of all charges, and court or supervision 

violations that resulted in court action reported on criminal history records. 

All recidivism events within a three-year period after release were counted, 

including felonies, misdemeanors, and court and supervision violations, but 
United States Sentencing Commission

8

minor traffic offenses were excluded.35

In addition to reporting recidivism rates, this report analyzed the time from 

release until the first recidivism event for offenders who did recidivate within 

three years. Studying the timing of recidivism can help in understanding 

the process of desistance, as some offenders may be able to remain in the 

community for a considerable time before recidivating, while others recidivate 

very quickly. 

For offenders who did recidivate following their release, the Commission also 

examined the type of recidivism event and ranked those recidivism events in 

order from most to least serious. The ranking generally begins with the most 

serious violent crimes, proceeds to less serious violent crimes, and then ranks 

property, drug trafficking, non-trafficking drug offenses, court or supervision 

violations, and public order crimes. Next, the “most serious” recidivism 

events were compiled to indicate which events appeared most frequently as 

the “most serious” recidivism event committed during the three-year period 

after release. Reporting offense types in this manner is intended to allow the 

reader to assess the relative threat to public safety posed by offenders who 

did recidivate. 

Finally, the report analyzes the association between recidivism rates 

and offender characteristics (such as age) and other factors (such as the 

involvement of a weapon in the offense) and notes how those factors relate 

to differences in recidivism rates between the Retroactivity and Comparison 

Groups. 

Study Group

The 14,253 federal offenders studied were divided into two groups: 

• The Retroactivity Group: 7,121 offenders who received sentence 

reductions through retroactive application of the Drugs Minus Two 

Amendment and who were released early from October 30, 2015, to May 

31, 2016; and

• The Comparison Group: 7,132 offenders who would have been eligible 

for sentence reductions through retroactive application of the Drugs 

Minus Two Amendment but were released between May 1, 2014, and 

October 29, 2015, having served their full sentences before the Drugs 

Minus Two Amendment could be retroactively applied. 
United States Sentencing Commission

9

Figure 1. Study Groups

In this study, the Commission used a research design combining matching

to create the Comparison Group and logistic regression to analyze the effect 

of a reduction in sentence pursuant to a retroactive application of the Drugs 

Minus Two Amendment on recidivism. Matching creates a comparison group 

by identifying individuals who share similar key attributes determined by the 

researcher. 

For this study, each member of the Retroactivity Group was matched oneto-one to a group of drug offenders who were released between May 1, 2014, 

and October 29, 2015, which was before the Drugs Minus Two Amendment 

became retroactive. These offenders served their full sentences but would 

have been eligible for sentence reductions through retroactive application 

of the Drugs Minus Two Amendment had it been retroactive before the 

offenders were released. Each Retroactivity Group offender was matched to 

a member of this larger group of offenders who most closely resembled him 

or her with respect to the following characteristics: drug type involved in 

the offense, Criminal History Category (CHC), education level, gender, race/

ethnicity, and age at release.36 The 7,132 offenders matched through this 

process became the Comparison Group for this study.
United States Sentencing Commission

10

As demonstrated in Appendix A, after matching, the composition of the 

Retroactivity Group and Comparison Group are extremely similar with 

respect to the matching characteristics. This is particularly true of age and 

criminal history, both of which have been previously shown to be associated 

with recidivism rates.37 The average age at release of both the Retroactivity 

and Comparison Groups is 41 years old. The proportion of offenders in 

each Criminal History Category in the two groups are within fractions of a 

percentage. For example, the proportion of offenders in the lowest category, 

CHC I, is 29.6 percent in the Retroactivity Group and 30.4 percent in the 

Comparison Group. The proportion of offenders in the highest category, 

CHC VI, is 10.2 percent in the Retroactivity Group and 9.6 percent in the 

Comparison Group. The groups are also closely matched in terms of drug 

type involved in the offense, education level, gender, and race/ethnicity, 

differing by less than one percent across every category. This similarity 

between Retroactivity and Comparison Group means that any difference in 

recidivism rates between groups cannot be attributed to any of the matched 

characteristics.

The Retroactivity Group was released early after serving an average of 

37 fewer months of imprisonment than their original sentence.38 While 

the matching of the two groups on offense and offender characteristics 

produced two groups which are very similar on important factors related to 

the likelihood of recidivism, there were differences related to the length of 

the original term of imprisonment. The Comparison Group had an average 

sentence of 89 months, while the Retroactivity Group had an average original 

sentence of 128 months, which after resentencing resulted in an average 

sentence of 91 months. Relatedly, the Retroactivity Group had a higher 

proportion of offenders with original sentences longer than ten years (43.7%) 

than the Comparison Group (27.9%). This difference is likely the result of 

the early release of many offenders with long sentences in the Retroactivity 

Group.39 

In conjunction with the matching techniques described above, the publication 

also utilized a logistic regression model to account for the difference in 

offender’s original sentence length. As demonstrated in Appendix B, the 

logistic regression model controlled for original sentence length in addition to 

all the characteristics used in matching. Specifically, the logistic regression 

controls for drug type involved in the offense, age, gender, race/ethnicity, 

Criminal History Category, education level, and length of original sentence.40
United States Sentencing Commission

11

Data Analysis

The Commission analyzed the recidivism rates of the Retroactivity Group 

and the Comparison Group across several factors, including race/ethnicity, 

gender, education, age at release, criminal history, type of drug in the offense, 

and weapon involvement in the offense. The Commission also analyzed 

the Retroactivity Group and the Comparison Group using multiple logistic 

regression analysis to estimate the relationship between a reduction in 

sentence after retroactive application of the Drugs Minus Two Amendment 

and recidivism. Logistic regression is a modeling technique used to analyze 

the relationship between attributes (e.g., received a sentence reduction, age, 

gender, etc.) and a binary response variable (e.g., recidivism).41 In this study, 

logistic regression was used to analyze the relationship between receiving 

a reduced sentence after retroactive application of the Drugs Minus Two 

Amendment and recidivism while controlling for the attributes listed in 

Appendix A. 

DETAILED RECIDIVISM FINDINGS42

Overview of Recidivism Study Findings

There was no statistically significant difference in the recidivism rates 

for the Retroactivity Group and the Comparison Group even though the 

Retroactivity Group was released early after serving an average of 37 fewer 

months of imprisonment than their original sentence.43 The recidivism rates 

for the Retroactivity and Comparison Groups were 27.9 percent and 30.5 

percent, respectively (See Figure 2).

Figure 2. Overview of Recidivism Study Findings
United States Sentencing Commission

12

Court or supervision violations, which can include a wide range of 

conduct, were the “most serious” post-release recidivism event for both the 

Retroactivity Group and the Comparison Group among the offenders who 

did recidivate.44 Approximately one-third of offenders who did recidivate in 

both groups—34.4 percent for the Retroactivity Group and 33.1 percent for 

the Comparison Group—had such a violation as their most serious postrelease recidivism event during the three-year period. Drug trafficking, drug 

possession, and simple assault were the next most frequently occurring “most 

serious” recidivism events for both groups (See Figure 3). 

A violent offense was the most serious post-release recidivism event for 

20.7 percent of the Retroactivity Group offenders and for 21.5 percent of 

the Comparison Group offenders. Appendix D provides the types of violent 

offenses committed by both groups.

Figure 3. Most Serious Post-Release Recidivism Event

34.4%

13.0% 10.5% 8.4% 5.9% 4.5%

23.3%

33.1%

15.7%

9.3% 9.0%

4.8% 4.7%

23.4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Court or

Supervision

Violation

Drug Trafficking Drug Possession Simple Assault DUI Larceny/Motor

Vehicle Theft

Other

Retroactivity Group Comparison Group
United States Sentencing Commission

13

For the offenders in both groups who did recidivate, the median time to 

recidivism was very similar, 14.9 months for the Retroactivity Group and 

15.3 months for the Comparison Group (See Figure 4). 

Figure 4. Median Time to Recidivism

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Recidivism Rate

Months After Release

Retroactivity Group Comparison Group

Median Time to Recidivism:

Retroactivity Group

14.9 months

Comparison Group

15.3 months

30.5%

27.9%

0 12 24 36
United States Sentencing Commission

14

Recidivism by Offender Characteristics

The Commission analyzed the relationship between recidivism rates and 

various offender characteristics, including race/ethnicity, gender, educational 

attainment, age at release, and Criminal History Category. Notably, 

recidivism rates between the Retroactivity and Comparison Groups remain 

close when disaggregated across many offense and offender subgroups.

For example, the recidivism rate for each racial/ethnic category was similar 

across the Retroactivity and Comparison Groups. Specifically, White 

offenders had recidivism rates of 27.1 percent in the Retroactivity Group 

and 30.3 percent in the Comparison Group; Black offenders had recidivism 

rates of 30.4 percent and 33.0 percent respectively; Hispanic offenders had 

recidivism rates of 24.7 percent and 26.4 percent respectively, and offenders 

of other racial/ethnic backgrounds had recidivism rates of 29.0 percent and 

28.4 percent respectively (See Figure 5).

Figure 5. Recidivism Rates by Race/Ethnicity

27.1%

30.4%

24.7%

30.3% 29.0%

33.0%

26.4% 28.4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

White Black Hispanic Other

Retroactivity Group Comparison Group

n = 622 n = 707 n = 891 n = 975 n = 418 n = 444 n = 58 n = 46
United States Sentencing Commission

15

Recidivism rates in both groups were similar for male offenders, who 

comprised more than 90 percent of the offenders in the study. Male offenders 

had recidivism rates of 28.6 percent in the Retroactivity Group and 30.8 

percent in the Comparison Group. While the recidivism rates for female 

offenders differed somewhat—21.4 percent in the Retroactivity Group and 

26.7 percent in the Comparison Group—females accounted for less than ten 

percent of the offenders in the study (See Figure 6).

Figure 6. Recidivism Rates by Gender

28.6%

21.4%

30.8%

26.7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Male Female

Retroactivity Group Comparison Group

n = 1,841 n = 2,003 n = 148 n = 169
United States Sentencing Commission

16

Among offenders who had completed less than a high school education at 

the time they were sentenced, the recidivism rates were 31.6 percent in the 

Retroactivity Group and 33.8 percent in the Comparison Group. Among 

offenders who had completed high school but did not attend college, the 

recidivism rates were 27.6 percent in the Retroactivity Group and 31.2 

percent in the Comparison Group. For those offenders who had attended 

some college but had not graduated, the recidivism rates were 21.6 percent 

in the Retroactivity Group and 22.7 percent in the Comparison Group (See

Figure 7).

Figure 7. Recidivism Rates by Educational Attainment

31.6%

27.6%

21.6%

17.9%

33.8% 31.2%

22.7%

12.8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Less than High School

Graduate

High School Graduate Some College College Graduate

Retroactivity Group Comparison Group

n = 853 n = 920 n = 850 n = 968 n = 262 n = 267 n = 24 n = 17
United States Sentencing Commission

17

The Commission has previously found offender age to be an important factor 

influencing recidivism.45 Among offenders released from age 18 to age 30, 

the recidivism rates were 41.9 percent in the Retroactivity Group and 47.5 

percent in the Comparison Group. Among offenders released after reaching 

age 61 or older the recidivism rates were 9.9 percent and 11.7 percent, 

respectively (See Figure 8).

Figure 8. Recidivism Rates by Age at Release

41.9%

32.2%

23.8%

16.0%

9.9%

47.5%

35.7%

24.8%

15.5%

11.7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

18 - 30 31 - 40 41 - 50 51 - 60 61 or Older

Retroactivity Group Comparison Group

n = 381 n = 480 n = 927 n = 1,009 n = 506 n = 494 n = 144 n = 152 n = 31 n = 37
United States Sentencing Commission

18

The Commission has previously found that the seriousness of an offender’s 

criminal record is an important factor influencing recidivism.46 Prior to 

sentencing, courts determine an offender’s Criminal History Category based 

on the number and sentence length of their prior convictions.47 Among 

offenders in the lowest category, CHC I, the recidivism rate was 14.9 percent 

for the Retroactivity Group and 18.0 percent for the Comparison Group. In 

contrast, among offenders in CHC VI, the recidivism rate was 48.5 percent 

for the Retroactivity Group and 51.0 percent for the Comparison Group (See

Figure 9).

Figure 9. Recidivism Rates by Criminal History Category

14.9%

21.8%

29.1%

35.8%

41.8%

48.5%

18.0%

23.6%

31.6%

40.3%

43.5%

51.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Criminal History

Category I

Criminal History

Category II

Criminal History

Category III

Criminal History

Category IV

Criminal History

Category V

Criminal History

Category VI

Retroactivity Group Comparison Group

n = 314 n = 390 n = 224 n = 243 n = 460 n = 504 n = 372 n = 419 n = 266 n = 268 n = 353 n = 348
United States Sentencing Commission

19

Recidivism by Other Characteristics

In addition to analyzing the relationship between offender characteristics 

and recidivism, this study examined the relationship between recidivism 

and other characteristics, including whether the offense involved a weapon, 

the length of the sentence relative to the applicable guideline range, and the 

length of the original sentence imposed. 

Offenders in the Retroactivity and Comparison Groups whose drug offense 

involved a weapon had recidivism rates of 29.0 percent and 30.4 percent, 

respectively.48 For offenders who committed an offense that did not involve a 

weapon, the recidivism rates were 27.5 percent and 30.5 percent respectively 

(See Figure 10).

Figure 10. Recidivism Rates by Weapon Involvement

27.5% 30.5% 29.0% 30.4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

No Weapon Weapon Specific Offense Characteristic or

Convicted Under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)

Retroactivity Group Comparison Group

n = 1,357 n = 1,691 n = 632 n = 481
United States Sentencing Commission

20

The study also analyzed whether the length of the original sentence imposed 

relative to the applicable guideline range affected recidivism rates. For 

offenders sentenced within the guideline range, the recidivism rates were 

27.9 percent in the Retroactivity Group and 30.9 percent in the Comparison 

Group. For offenders sentenced below the guideline range for providing 

substantial assistance to the government under §5K1.1, the recidivism 

rates were 27.3 percent in the Retroactivity Group and 30.6 percent in the 

Comparison Group. The recidivism rates for offenders sentenced below the 

guideline range for a reason not sponsored by the government were 30.4 

percent in the Retroactivity Group and 29.0 percent in the Comparison Group 

(See Figure 11). Although the recidivism rate for offenders sentenced above 

the guideline range and for offenders sentenced below the guideline range 

for a reason sponsored by the government (other than under §5K1.1) show a 

difference between the groups, the number of cases in these categories is too 

low to support meaningful analysis.

Figure 11. Recidivism Rates by Sentence Relative to the 

Guideline Range

27.9% 29.0% 27.3%

32.4% 30.9% 30.4%

46.6%

30.6% 28.0% 29.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Within Above §5K1.1 Other Gov't Sponsored Other Below

Retroactivity Group Comparison Group

n = 1,183 n = 970 n = 18 n = 34 n = 631 n = 709 n = 24 n = 135 n = 128 n = 320
United States Sentencing Commission

21

The analysis examined the relationship between the length of the sentence 

originally imposed and recidivism. For offenders with original sentences of 

ten years or more, the recidivism rates were 25.6 percent in the Retroactivity 

Group and 27.6 percent in the Comparison Group. For offenders with original 

sentences of less than ten years, the recidivism rates were 29.7 percent in the 

Retroactivity Group and 31.6 percent in the Comparison Group (See Figure 

12). 

Figure 12. Recidivism Rates by Sentence Length

29.7%

25.6%

31.6%

27.6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Less than 10 Years 10 Years or More

Retroactivity Group Comparison Group

n = 1,190 n = 1,622 n = 798 n = 549
United States Sentencing Commission

22

DETAILED RECIDIVISM FINDINGS FOR SPECIFIC 

DRUG TYPES

Approximately three-quarters of all drug offenders in the Retroactivity and 

Comparison Groups were convicted of drug offenses involving one of three 

primary drug types: Powder Cocaine (23.9%), Crack Cocaine (25.4%), and 

Methamphetamine (28.4%). The remaining offenders committed offenses 

involving Heroin (6.5%), Marijuana (10.3%), or Other Drugs (5.4%) (See Table 

1). 

Table 1. Distribution of Primary Drug Type for All Offenders

Number (%)

Total Cases 14,253 (100%)

Primary Drug Type

Powder Cocaine 3,412 (23.9%)

Crack Cocaine 3,619 (25.4%)

Heroin 928 (6.5%)

Marijuana 1,467 (10.3%)

Methamphetamine 4,053 (28.4%)

Other Drugs 774 (5.4%)
United States Sentencing Commission

23

As reflected in Table 2, recidivism rates did vary among drug types, which 

is consistent with the Commission’s findings in other publications.49 

Crack Cocaine offenders had the highest recidivism rates (35.1% for the 

Retroactivity Group and 37.5% for the Comparison Group). Powder Cocaine 

offenders had the lowest recidivism rates (19.5% for the Retroactivity 

Group and 22.3% for the Comparison Group). The recidivism rates were 

nonetheless consistent between both the Retroactivity and Comparison 

Groups. That is, the recidivism rates for offenders in each drug type in the 

Retroactivity Group did not differ in a statistically significant way from the 

rates of offenders in the Comparison Group for that drug type.50 In fact, the 

recidivism rates for each drug type in the Retroactivity Group were below 

that of the corresponding Comparison Group.

Table 2. Recidivism Rates by Primary Drug Type

Retroactivity Group Comparison Group

All Drugs 27.9% 30.5%

Primary Drug Type

Powder Cocaine 19.5% 22.3%

Crack Cocaine 35.1% 37.5%

Heroin 30.4% 35.6%

Marijuana 25.4% 29.2%

Methamphetamine 29.1% 29.7%

Other Drugs 27.1% 33.9%
United States Sentencing Commission

24

There was no clear difference in the time to recidivism or the most serious 

recidivism event by drug type. All groups had relatively similar times to 

recidivism for those offenders who did recidivate. While the median time to 

recidivism for all offenders was 14.9 months for the Retroactivity Group and 

15.3 months for the Comparison Group, Heroin offenders were the fastest to 

recidivate (14.0 months for the Retroactivity Group and 14.2 months for the 

Comparison Group) (See Figure 13).

Figure 13. Median Time to Recidivism by Primary Drug Type

14.9 15.1 15.0

14.0 14.7 14.3

15.3 15.0 15.6

14.5 14.2

15.4 15.9 15.7

0

6

12

18

24

30

36

All Drugs Powder Cocaine Crack Cocaine Heroin Marijuana Methamphetamine Other Drugs

Months

Retroactivity Group Comparison Group
United States Sentencing Commission

25

Court or supervision violations were the “most serious” post-release 

recidivism event for both the Retroactivity Group and the Comparison Group 

among the offenders who did recidivate.51 Marijuana offenders had the 

highest percentage of court violations as the most serious recidivism event 

(40.3% for the Retroactivity Group and 40.7% for the Comparison Group). 

Although a smaller proportion of Crack Cocaine offenders had a court or 

supervision violation as their most serious recidivism event, it was still the 

most frequent event for offenders in that drug type, at 30.6 percent for the 

Retroactivity Group and 29.1 percent for the Comparison Group (See Figure 

14). 

Appendix C provides further analysis of the most serious post-release 

recidivism event by drug type, including further disaggregating offense 

grouped in the Other category of Figure 14.

Figure 14. Most Serious Post-Release Recidivism Event 

by Primary Drug Type

33.1%

34.4%

15.7%

13.0%

9.3%

10.5%

9.0%

8.4%

4.8%

5.9%

4.7%

4.5%

23.4%

23.3%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Comparison Group

Retroactivity Group

All Drugs

Court or Supervision Violation Drug Trafficking

Drug Possession Simple Assault

DUI Larceny/Motor Vehicle Theft

Other

30.6%

27.7%

14.7%

14.2%

7.3%

11.1%

9.7%

8.7%

7.9%

9.0%

3.4%

4.5%

26.4%

24.8%

Comparison

Group

Retroactivity

Group

Powder Cocaine

29.1%

30.6%

19.3%

14.2%

10.2%

8.8%

10.0%

9.9%

3.7%

6.0%

3.4%

3.3%

24.3%

27.2%

Comparison

Group

Retroactivity

Group

Crack Cocaine

37.6%

37.6%

12.1%

18.4%

6.7%

12.8%

9.7%

5.7%

3.0%

7.1%

4.2%

5.7%

26.7%

12.7%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Comparison

Group

Retroactivity

Group

Heroin

Court or Supervision Violation Drug Trafficking

Drug Possession Simple Assault

DUI Larceny/Motor Vehicle Theft

Other

33.1%

34.4%

15.7%

13.0%

9.3%

10.5%

9.0%

8.4%

4.8%

5.9%

4.7%

4.5%

23.4%

23.3%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Comparison Group

Retroactivity Group

All Drugs

Court or Supervision Violation Drug Trafficking

Drug Possession Simple Assault

DUI Larceny/Motor Vehicle Theft

Other

30.6%

27.7%

14.7%

14.2%

7.3%

11.1%

9.7%

8.7%

7.9%

9.0%

3.4%

4.5%

26.4%

24.8%

Comparison

Group

Retroactivity

Group

Powder Cocaine

29.1%

30.6%

19.3%

14.2%

10.2%

8.8%

10.0%

9.9%

3.7%

6.0%

3.4%

3.3%

24.3%

27.2%

Comparison

Group

Retroactivity

Group

Crack Cocaine

37.6%

37.6%

12.1%

18.4%

6.7%

12.8%

9.7%

5.7%

3.0%

7.1%

4.2%

5.7%

26.7%

12.7%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Comparison

Group

Retroactivity

Group

Heroin

Court or Supervision Violation Drug Trafficking

Drug Possession Simple Assault

DUI Larceny/Motor Vehicle Theft

Other

40.7%

40.3%

8.9%

8.1%

10.8%

11.8%

7.5%

9.1%

5.1%

4.8%

6.1%

5.9%

20.9%

20.0%

Comparison

Group

Retroactivity

Group

Marijuana

34.1%

39.5%

16.1%

11.9%

10.0%

10.7%

8.1%

7.3%

4.3%

4.6%

6.2%

5.1%

21.2%

20.9%

Comparison

Group

Retroactivity

Group

Methamphetamine

38.2%

35.2%

13.7%

10.5%

8.4%

12.4%

6.9%

5.7%

6.1%

2.9%

7.6%

3.8%

19.1%

29.5%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Comparison

Group

Retroactivity

Group

Other Drugs

Court or Supervision Violation Drug Trafficking

Drug Possession Simple Assault

DUI Larceny/Motor Vehicle Theft

Other
United States Sentencing Commission

26

The Commission also analyzed the relationship between recidivism rates and 

various offense and offender characteristics by the six drug types. Notably, 

recidivism rates between the Retroactivity and Comparison Groups remain 

close when disaggregated across many offense and offender subgroups for 

each drug type. Appendix E presents the results for each factor for each drug 

type.
United States Sentencing Commission

27

CONCLUSION

The Commission found no statistically significant difference in the recidivism 

rates of offenders who were released an estimated average of 37 months early 

through the retroactive application of the Drugs Minus Two Amendment and 

similar offenders who served their full sentences and were released before the 

Drugs Minus Two Amendment could be retroactively applied. The recidivism 

rates for the Retroactivity and Comparison Groups were similar within 

three years of release from incarceration, 27.9 percent and 30.5 percent, 

respectively. This finding held true across all major drug types, although 

the recidivism rates varied by drug type.The Commission’s findings in this 

study are consistent with those of the Commission’s recidivism studies of 

drug offenders impacted by other recent retroactive amendments.
United States Sentencing Commission

28

Table A-1. Offense and Offender Characteristics by Study Group

APPENDIX A

Retroactivity 

Group

Comparison 

Group

Total Offenders 7,121 (50.0%) 7,132 (50.0%)

Primary Drug Type

 Powder Cocaine 1,702 (23.9%) 1,710 (24.0%)

 Crack Cocaine 1,809 (25.4%) 1,810 (25.4%)

 Heroin 464 (6.5%) 464 (6.5%)

 Marijuana 733 (10.3%) 734 (10.3%)

 Methamphetamine 2,026 (28.5%) 2,027 (28.4%)

 Other Drugs 387 (5.4%) 387 (5.4%)

Race/Ethnicity

 White 2,294 (32.2%) 2,332 (32.7%)

 Black 2,931 (41.2%) 2,959 (41.5%)

 Hispanic 1,696 (23.8%) 1,679 (23.5%)

 Other 200 (2.8%) 162 (2.3%)

Gender

 Male 6,430 (90.3%) 6,498 (91.1%)

 Female 691 (9.7%) 634 (8.9%)

Age at Release (Years)

 Average Age 41 41

Educational Attainment

 Less than High School 2,697 (37.9%) 2,723 (38.2%)

 High School Graduate 3,079 (43.2%) 3,101 (43.5%)

 Some College 1,211 (17.0%) 1,175 (16.5%)

 College Graduate 134 (1.9%) 133 (1.9%)

Criminal History Category

 CHC I 2,106 (29.6%) 2,168 (30.4%)

 CHC II 1,030 (14.5%) 1,030 (14.4%)

 CHC III 1,580 (22.2%) 1,594 (22.4%)

 CHC IV 1,040 (14.6%) 1,041 (14.6%)

 CHC V 637 (9.0%) 616 (8.6%)

 CHC VI 728 (10.2%) 683 (9.6%)
United States Sentencing Commission

29

APPENDIX B

Table B-1

SUMMARY OF DRUGS MINUS TWO RETROACTIVITY PREDICTING RECIDIVISM

ALL DRUGS

Term Estimate Standard 

Error

Wald

Chi-Square

p-value Odds Ratio 95% CI

Lower Upper

(Intercept) 1.0864 0.1264 73.8564 <.0001

Research Group

 Retroactivity Group vs. Comparison -0.0586 0.0408 2.0670 0.1505 0.943 0.871 1.022

Primary Drug Type

 Cocaine vs. Marijuana -0.3325 0.0787 17.8230 <.0001 0.717 0.615 0.837

 Crack vs. Marijuana 0.0462 0.0840 0.3021 0.5826 1.047 0.888 1.235

 Heroin vs. Marijuana 0.0596 0.0988 0.3637 0.5465 1.061 0.875 1.288

 Methamphetamine vs. Marijuana -0.0176 0.0755 0.0542 0.8159 0.983 0.847 1.139

 Other Drugs vs. Marijuana -0.00491 0.1056 0.0022 0.9629 0.995 0.809 1.224

Age-at-Release

 Age -0.0549 0.00242 515.1966 <.0001 0.947 0.942 0.951

Gender

 Female vs. Male -0.2016 0.0736 7.4983 0.0062 0.817 0.708 0.944

Race

 Black vs. White -0.1515 0.0647 5.4790 0.0192 0.859 0.757 0.976

 Hispanic vs. White -0.2045 0.0608 11.3082 0.0008 0.815 0.723 0.918

 Other vs. White 0.0401 0.1286 0.0975 0.7549 1.041 0.809 1.339

Educational Attainment

 High School Graduate vs. 

 < High School -0.1442 0.0436 10.9142 0.0010 0.866 0.795 0.943

 Some College vs. 

 < High School -0.2896 0.0615 22.1907 <.0001 0.749 0.664 0.844

 College Graduate vs.

 < High School -0.3987 0.1806 4.8724 0.0273 0.671 0.471 0.956

Criminal History Category

 CHC II vs. CHC I 0.4104 0.0698 34.5885 <.0001 1.507 1.315 1.728

 CHC III vs. CHC I 0.8207 0.0602 186.1337 <.0001 2.272 2.019 2.557

 CHC IV vs. CHC I 1.1866 0.0661 322.7262 <.0001 3.276 2.878 3.729

 CHC V vs. CHC I 1.4025 0.0761 340.0592 <.0001 4.065 3.502 4.719

 CHC VI vs. CHC I 1.8023 0.0749 579.0152 <.0001 6.063 5.235 7.022

Sentence

 Original Sentence -0.00227 0.000311 53.0517 <.0001 0.998 0.997 0.998

-2 Log Likelihood - 15393.695 (df = 20)

Hosmer and Lemeshow GOF Test 0.84

N 14,247

Response Variable: recidivism 
United States Sentencing Commission

30

Table B-2

SUMMARY OF DRUGS MINUS TWO RETROACTIVITY PREDICTING RECIDIVISM

POWDER COCAINE OFFENDERS

Term Estimate Standard 

Error

Wald

Chi-Square

p-value Odds Ratio 95% CI

Lower Upper

(Intercept) 0.5279 0.2686 3.8633 0.0494

Research Group

 Retroactivity Group vs. Comparison -0.1700 0.0915 3.4528 0.0631 0.844 0.705 1.009

Age-at-Release

 Age -0.0509 0.00577 77.7264 <.0001 0.950 0.940 0.961

Gender

 Female vs. Male 0.0959 0.2094 0.2096 0.6471 1.101 0.730 1.659

Race

 Black vs. White -0.1787 0.1386 1.6624 0.1973 0.836 0.637 1.097

 Hispanic vs. White -0.2074 0.1467 1.9985 0.1575 0.813 0.610 1.083

 Other vs. White 0.2409 0.3754 0.4118 0.5211 1.272 0.610 2.656

Educational Attainment

 High School Graduate vs. 

 < High School -0.1952 0.1003 3.7826 0.0518 0.823 0.676 1.002

 Some College vs. 

 < High School -0.1873 0.1266 2.1904 0.1389 0.829 0.647 1.063

 College Graduate vs.

 < High School -0.0590 0.3450 0.0293 0.8642 0.943 0.479 1.854

Criminal History Category

 CHC II vs. CHC I 0.3722 0.1486 6.2714 0.0123 1.451 1.084 1.941

 CHC III vs. CHC I 0.8331 0.1272 42.9128 <.0001 2.300 1.793 2.952

 CHC IV vs. CHC I 1.1813 0.1412 69.9585 <.0001 3.259 2.471 4.298

 CHC V vs. CHC I 1.5067 0.1828 67.9750 <.0001 4.512 3.154 6.456

 CHC VI vs. CHC I 1.8434 0.1769 108.6011 <.0001 6.318 4.467 8.936

Sentence

 Original Sentence -0.00111 0.000712 2.4200 0.1198 0.999 0.997 1.000

-2 Log Likelihood - 3204.317 (df = 15)

Hosmer and Lemeshow GOF Test 0.64

N 3,410

Response Variable: recidivism 
United States Sentencing Commission

31

Table B-3

SUMMARY OF DRUGS MINUS TWO RETROACTIVITY PREDICTING RECIDIVISM

CRACK COCAINE OFFENDERS

Term Estimate Standard 

Error

Wald

Chi-Square

p-value Odds 

Ratio

95% CI

Lower Upper

(Intercept) 1.8230 0.2684 46.1169 <.0001

Research Group

 Retroactivity Group vs. Comparison -0.0268 0.0750 0.1274 0.7211 0.974 0.840 1.128

Age-at-Release

 Age -0.0665 0.00517 165.6402 <.0001 0.936 0.926 0.945

Gender

 Female vs. Male -0.7542 0.2245 11.2893 0.0008 0.470 0.303 0.730

Race

 Black vs. White -0.1759 0.1754 1.0060 0.3159 0.839 0.595 1.183

 Hispanic vs. White -0.2920 0.2341 1.5567 0.2122 0.747 0.472 1.181

 Other vs. White -0.0363 0.5528 0.0043 0.9477 0.964 0.326 2.850

Educational Attainment

 High School Graduate vs. 

 < High School 0.00746 0.0790 0.0089 0.9247 1.007 0.863 1.176

 Some College vs. 

 < High School -0.1989 0.1220 2.6598 0.1029 0.820 0.645 1.041

 College Graduate vs.

 < High School -0.4502 0.5129 0.7704 0.3801 0.638 0.233 1.742

Criminal History Category

 CHC II vs. CHC I 0.3529 0.1501 5.5283 0.0187 1.423 1.060 1.910

 CHC III vs. CHC I 0.5427 0.1313 17.0712 <.0001 1.721 1.330 2.226

 CHC IV vs. CHC I 0.6981 0.1340 27.1478 <.0001 2.010 1.546 2.614

 CHC V vs. CHC I 0.8812 0.1427 38.1236 <.0001 2.414 1.825 3.193

 CHC VI vs. CHC I 1.4300 0.1421 101.3130 <.0001 4.179 3.163 5.520

Sentence

 Original Sentence -0.00208 0.000455 20.9094 <.0001 0.998 0.997 0.999

-2 Log Likelihood - 4328.964 (df = 15)

Hosmer and Lemeshow GOF Test 0.39

N 3,617

Response Variable: recidivism 
United States Sentencing Commission

32

Table B-4

SUMMARY OF DRUGS MINUS TWO RETROACTIVITY PREDICTING RECIDIVISM

HEROIN OFFENDERS

Term Estimate Standard 

Error

Wald

Chi-Square

p-value Odds 

Ratio

95% CI

Lower Upper

(Intercept) 1.6110 0.4025 16.0208 <.0001

Research Group

 Retroactivity Group vs. Comparison -0.2196 0.1615 1.8487 0.1739 0.803 0.585 1.102

Age-at-Release

 Age -0.0489 0.00848 33.2927 <.0001 0.952 0.937 0.968

Gender

 Female vs. Male -0.7181 0.2983 5.7949 0.0161 0.488 0.272 0.875

Race

 Black vs. White -0.6053 0.2240 7.2979 0.0069 0.546 0.352 0.847

 Hispanic vs. White -0.9722 0.2394 16.4991 <.0001 0.378 0.237 0.605

 Other vs. White -13.4881 641.6 0.0004 0.9832 0.000 <0.001 >999.999

Educational Attainment

 High School Graduate vs. 

 < High School -0.5448 0.1739 9.8177 0.0017 0.580 0.412 0.815

 Some College vs. 

 < High School -0.4503 0.2343 3.6938 0.0546 0.637 0.403 1.009

 College Graduate vs.

 < High School -1.8947 0.8086 5.4905 0.0191 0.150 0.031 0.734

Criminal History Category

 CHC II vs. CHC I 0.3466 0.2761 1.5761 0.2093 1.414 0.823 2.429

 CHC III vs. CHC I 1.1377 0.2366 23.1245 <.0001 3.120 1.962 4.960

 CHC IV vs. CHC I 1.5137 0.2612 33.5950 <.0001 4.544 2.723 7.581

 CHC V vs. CHC I 1.8240 0.3072 35.2634 <.0001 6.196 3.394 11.313

 CHC VI vs. CHC I 1.9009 0.2964 41.1413 <.0001 6.692 3.743 11.962

Sentence

 Original Sentence -0.00313 0.00160 3.8061 0.0511 0.997 0.994 1.000

-2 Log Likelihood - 998.928 (df = 15)

Hosmer and Lemeshow GOF Test 0.48

N 928

Response Variable: recidivism 
United States Sentencing Commission

33

Table B-5

SUMMARY OF DRUGS MINUS TWO RETROACTIVITY PREDICTING RECIDIVISM

MARIJUANA OFFENDERS

Term Estimate Standard 

Error

Wald

Chi-Square

p-value Odds 

Ratio

95% CI

Lower Upper

(Intercept) 0.7422 0.3362 4.8724 0.0273

Research Group

 Retroactivity Group vs. Comparison -0.1383 0.1394 0.9837 0.3213 0.871 0.663 1.145

Age-at-Release

 Age -0.0558 0.00721 60.0393 <.0001 0.946 0.932 0.959

Gender

 Female vs. Male 0.2555 0.2577 0.9836 0.3213 1.291 0.779 2.139

Race

 Black vs. White -0.2776 0.1956 2.0139 0.1559 0.758 0.516 1.112

 Hispanic vs. White 0.3904 0.1525 6.5534 0.0105 1.478 1.096 1.992

 Other vs. White -0.2136 0.4266 0.2508 0.6165 0.808 0.350 1.863

Educational Attainment

 High School Graduate vs. 

 < High School -0.2935 0.1458 4.0497 0.0442 0.746 0.560 0.992

 Some College vs. 

 < High School -0.1428 0.1937 0.5439 0.4608 0.867 0.593 1.267

 College Graduate vs.

 < High School -0.3266 0.3983 0.6722 0.4123 0.721 0.330 1.575

Criminal History Category

 CHC II vs. CHC I 0.2985 0.2054 2.1128 0.1461 1.348 0.901 2.016

 CHC III vs. CHC I 0.8788 0.1800 23.8290 <.0001 2.408 1.692 3.427

 CHC IV vs. CHC I 1.5331 0.2038 56.6045 <.0001 4.632 3.107 6.906

 CHC V vs. CHC I 1.9787 0.2600 57.9153 <.0001 7.234 4.345 12.041

 CHC VI vs. CHC I 2.2350 0.2877 60.3534 <.0001 9.347 5.318 16.427

Sentence

 Original Sentence -0.00141 0.00117 1.4628 0.2265 0.999 0.996 1.001

-2 Log Likelihood - 1488.537 (df = 15)

Hosmer and Lemeshow GOF Test 0.92

N 1,467

Response Variable: recidivism 
United States Sentencing Commission

34

Table B-6

SUMMARY OF DRUGS MINUS TWO RETROACTIVITY PREDICTING RECIDIVISM

METHAMPHETAMINE OFFENDERS

Term Estimate Standard 

Error

Wald

Chi-Square

p-value Odds 

Ratio

95% CI

Lower Upper

(Intercept) 0.8923 0.2013 19.6441 <.0001

Research Group

 Retroactivity Group vs. Comparison 0.0662 0.0771 0.7372 0.3906 1.068 0.919 1.243

Age-at-Release

 Age -0.0519 0.00433 143.7831 <.0001 0.949 0.941 0.957

Gender

 Female vs. Male -0.1683 0.1048 2.5796 0.1082 0.845 0.688 1.038

Race

 Black vs. White 0.1289 0.1919 0.4517 0.5015 1.138 0.781 1.657

 Hispanic vs. White -0.3385 0.0961 12.4171 0.0004 0.713 0.590 0.861

 Other vs. White 0.2527 0.1672 2.2849 0.1306 1.287 0.928 1.787

Educational Attainment

 High School Graduate vs. 

 < High School -0.1417 0.0819 2.9920 0.0837 0.868 0.739 1.019

 Some College vs. 

 < High School -0.4920 0.1213 16.4498 <.0001 0.611 0.482 0.775

 College Graduate vs.

 < High School -0.5329 0.4661 1.3073 0.2529 0.587 0.235 1.463

Criminal History Category

 CHC II vs. CHC I 0.4732 0.1328 12.6926 0.0004 1.605 1.237 2.082

 CHC III vs. CHC I 0.9011 0.1126 63.9970 <.0001 2.462 1.975 3.071

 CHC IV vs. CHC I 1.3992 0.1281 119.3403 <.0001 4.052 3.152 5.208

 CHC V vs. CHC I 1.5455 0.1435 115.9672 <.0001 4.690 3.540 6.214

 CHC VI vs. CHC I 1.9203 0.1370 196.3461 <.0001 6.823 5.216 8.926

Sentence

 Original Sentence -0.00295 0.000697 17.8795 <.0001 0.997 0.996 0.998

-2 Log Likelihood - 4379.090 (df = 15)

Hosmer and Lemeshow GOF Test 0.37

N 4,051

Response Variable: recidivism 
United States Sentencing Commission

35

Table B-7

SUMMARY OF DRUGS MINUS TWO RETROACTIVITY PREDICTING RECIDIVISM

OTHER DRUGS OFFENDERS

Term Estimate Standard 

Error

Wald

Chi-Square

p-value Odds 

Ratio

95% CI

Lower Upper

(Intercept) 1.0306 0.4303 5.7373 0.0166

Research Group

 Retroactivity Group vs. Comparison -0.1769 0.1832 0.9321 0.3343 0.838 0.585 1.200

Age-at-Release

 Age -0.0511 0.00916 31.1672 <.0001 0.950 0.933 0.967

Gender

 Female vs. Male 0.0772 0.2495 0.0958 0.7570 1.080 0.662 1.762

Race

 Black vs. White -0.2094 0.2003 1.0929 0.2958 0.811 0.548 1.201

 Hispanic vs. White 0.00307 0.3342 0.0001 0.9927 1.003 0.521 1.931

 Other vs. White -0.5414 0.3959 1.8699 0.1715 0.582 0.268 1.264

Educational Attainment

 High School Graduate vs. 

 < High School 0.0212 0.2008 0.0112 0.9159 1.021 0.689 1.514

 Some College vs. 

 < High School -0.0955 0.2684 0.1267 0.7219 0.909 0.537 1.538

 College Graduate vs.

 < High School 0.1560 0.4519 0.1193 0.7298 1.169 0.482 2.834

Criminal History Category

 CHC II vs. CHC I 0.3724 0.2587 2.0717 0.1501 1.451 0.874 2.410

 CHC III vs. CHC I 0.7715 0.2313 11.1292 0.0008 2.163 1.375 3.403

 CHC IV vs. CHC I 1.2448 0.2731 20.7699 <.0001 3.472 2.033 5.930

 CHC V vs. CHC I 1.9187 0.3729 26.4771 <.0001 6.812 3.280 14.147

 CHC VI vs. CHC I 2.1947 0.4199 27.3123 <.0001 8.977 3.942 20.446

Sentence

 Original Sentence -0.00589 0.00277 4.5379 0.0332 0.994 0.989 1.000

-2 Log Likelihood - 845.281 (df = 15)

Hosmer and Lemeshow GOF Test 0.83

N 774

Response Variable: recidivism 
United States Sentencing Commission

36

APPENDIX C

Table C-1. Most Serious Post-Release Recidivism Event by Primary Drug Type

Retroactivity 

Group

Comparison 

Group

All Drugs

Court or Supervision Violation 34.4% 33.1%

Drug Trafficking 13.0% 15.7%

Drug Possession 10.5% 9.3%

Simple Assault 8.4% 9.0%

DUI 5.9% 4.8%

Larceny/Motor Vehicle Theft 4.5% 4.7%

Aggravated Assault 3.4% 5.2%

Weapons Offenses 2.9% 1.7%

Unspecified Drug Offense 2.6% 2.3%

Fraud 2.5% 2.7%

Other Property 2.0% 2.5%

Robbery 1.4% 1.2%

Other 8.7% 7.9%

Powder Cocaine

Court or Supervision Violation 27.7% 30.6%

Drug Trafficking 14.2% 14.7%

Drug Possession 11.1% 7.3%

DUI 9.0% 7.9%

Simple Assault 8.7% 9.7%

Larceny/Motor Vehicle Theft 4.5% 3.4%

Aggravated Assault 3.3% 6.0%

Unspecified Drug Offense 3.0% 2.9%

Weapons Offenses 2.4% 1.8%

Murder 2.1% 1.1%

Other Property 2.1% 1.8%

Public Order 1.8% 1.3%

Other 9.9% 11.5%
United States Sentencing Commission

37

Table C-1. Most Serious Post-Release Recidivism Event by Primary Drug Type, Continued

Retroactivity 

Group

Comparison 

Group

Crack Cocaine

Court or Supervision Violation 30.6% 29.1%

Drug Trafficking 14.2% 19.3%

Simple Assault 9.9% 10.0%

Drug Possession 8.8% 10.2%

DUI 6.0% 3.7%

Weapons Offenses 4.7% 2.2%

Unspecified Drug Offense 4.3% 2.7%

Aggravated Assault 3.3% 5.2%

Larceny/Motor Vehicle Theft 3.3% 3.4%

Fraud 2.7% 2.1%

Robbery 2.4% 1.8%

Other Property 1.6% 2.2%

Other 8.4% 8.3%

Heroin

Court or Supervision Violation 37.6% 37.6%

Drug Trafficking 18.4% 12.1%

Drug Possession 12.8% 6.7%

DUI 7.1% 3.0%

Larceny/Motor Vehicle Theft 5.7% 4.2%

Simple Assault 5.7% 9.7%

Aggravated Assault 2.1% 3.6%

Unspecified Drug Offense 2.1% 2.4%

Robbery 1.4% 1.8%

Unspecified Manslaughter 1.4% 0.6%

Weapons Offenses 1.4% 3.0%

Burglary 0.7% 0.0%

Other 3.5% 15.1%
United States Sentencing Commission

38

Table C-1. Most Serious Post-Release Recidivism Event by Primary Drug Type, Continued

Retroactivity 

Group

Comparison 

Group

Marijuana

Court or Supervision Violation 40.3% 40.7%

Drug Possession 11.8% 10.8%

Simple Assault 9.1% 7.5%

Drug Trafficking 8.1% 8.9%

Larceny/Motor Vehicle Theft 5.9% 6.1%

Aggravated Assault 4.8% 6.5%

DUI 4.8% 5.1%

Other Property 3.8% 3.7%

Fraud 2.7% 1.4%

Burglary 2.2% 0.9%

Kidnapping 1.1% 0.5%

Murder 1.1% 0.0%

Other 4.3% 8.0%

Methamphetamine

Court or Supervision Violation 39.5% 34.1%

Drug Trafficking 11.9% 16.1%

Drug Possession 10.7% 10.0%

Simple Assault 7.3% 8.1%

Larceny/Motor Vehicle Theft 5.1% 6.2%

DUI 4.6% 4.3%

Aggravated Assault 3.7% 4.8%

Fraud 3.1% 3.0%

Weapons Offenses 2.0% 1.5%

Burglary 1.9% 2.3%

Other Property 1.7% 2.5%

Escape/Flight 1.2% 0.2%

Other 7.5% 7.0%
United States Sentencing Commission

39

Table C-1. Most Serious Post-Release Recidivism Event by Primary Drug Type, Continued

Retroactivity 

Group

Comparison 

Group

Other Drugs

Court or Supervision Violation 35.2% 38.2%

Drug Possession 12.4% 8.4%

Drug Trafficking 10.5% 13.7%

Fraud 5.7% 5.3%

Other Property 5.7% 1.5%

Simple Assault 5.7% 6.9%

Larceny/Motor Vehicle Theft 3.8% 7.6%

Unspecified Drug Offense 3.8% 2.3%

Weapons Offenses 3.8% 0.0%

DUI 2.9% 6.1%

Aggravated Assault 1.9% 3.8%

Murder 1.9% 0.8%

Other 6.7% 5.3%
United States Sentencing Commission

40

APPENDIX D

Table D-1. Most Serious Post-Release Recidivism Event: Violent Offenses Only

Retroactivity Group Comparison Group

All Drugs

Total Violent 20.7% Total Violent 21.5%

Simple Assault 8.4% Simple Assault 9.0%

Aggravated Assault 3.4% Aggravated Assault 5.2%

Weapons Offenses 2.9% Weapons Offenses 1.7%

Robbery 1.4% Robbery 1.2%

Murder 1.3% Murder 1.0%

Kidnapping 0.6% Forcible Sex Offense 0.6%

Forcible Sex Offense 0.6% Kidnapping 0.5%

Child Abuse 0.6% Hit and Run with Bodily Injury 0.4%

Intimidation (Not Witness) 0.3% Child Abuse 0.3%

Other Violent 1.6% Other Violent 1.8%

Retroactivity Group Comparison Group

Powder Cocaine

Total Violent 22.6% Total Violent 23.6%

Simple Assault 8.7% Simple Assault 9.7%

Aggravated Assault 3.3% Aggravated Assault 6.0%

Weapons Offenses 2.4% Weapons Offenses 1.8%

Murder 2.1% Murder 1.1%

Robbery 1.2% Forcible Sex Offense 1.1%

Forcible Sex Offense 0.9% Robbery 1.1%

Child Abuse 0.9% Kidnapping 0.8%

Intimidation (Not Witness) 0.6% Intimidation (Not Witness) 0.3%

Non-Negligent Manslaughter 0.3% Child Abuse 0.3%

Other Violent 2.1% Other Violent 1.6%

*The sum of the individual offense rates in this Appendix may not equal the total due to rounding.
United States Sentencing Commission

41

Retroactivity Group Comparison Group

Crack Cocaine

Total Violent 25.0% Total Violent 24.6%

Simple Assault 9.9% Simple Assault 10.0%

Weapons Offenses 4.7% Aggravated Assault 5.2%

Aggravated Assault 3.3% Weapons Offenses 2.2%

Robbery 2.4% Robbery 1.8%

Murder 1.3% Murder 1.5%

Kidnapping 0.8% Forcible Sex Offense 0.6%

Child Abuse 0.6% Kidnapping 0.4%

Forcible Sex Offense 0.3% Intimidation (Not Witness) 0.4%

Intimidation (Not Witness) 0.3% Hit and Run with Bodily Injury 0.4%

Other Violent 1.4% Other Violent 2.1%

Retroactivity Group Comparison Group

Heroin

Total Violent 14.2% Total Violent 23.7%

Simple Assault 5.7% Simple Assault 9.7%

Aggravated Assault 2.1% Aggravated Assault 3.6%

Unspecified Manslaughter 1.4% Weapons Offenses 3.0%

Robbery 1.4% Robbery 1.8%

Weapons Offenses 1.4% Murder 1.2%

Intimidation (Not Witness) 0.7% Unspecified Manslaughter 0.6%

Hit and Run with Bodily Injury 0.7% Kidnapping 0.6%

Other Violent 0.7% Forcible Sex Offense 0.6%

Intimidation (Not Witness) 0.6%

Other Violent 1.8%

*The sum of the individual offense rates in this Appendix may not equal the total due to rounding.
United States Sentencing Commission

42

Retroactivity Group Comparison Group

Marijuana

Total Violent 18.3% Total Violent 19.2%

Simple Assault 9.1% Simple Assault 7.5%

Aggravated Assault 4.8% Aggravated Assault 6.5%

Murder 1.1% Robbery 1.9%

Kidnapping 1.1% Kidnapping 0.5%

Statutory Rape 0.5% Forcible Sex Offense 0.5%

Forcible Sex Offense 0.5% Intimidation (Not Witness) 0.5%

Robbery 0.5% Hit and Run with Bodily Injury 0.5%

Weapons Offenses 0.5% Weapons Offenses 0.5%

Other Violent 0.9%

Retroactivity Group Comparison Group

Methamphetamine

Total Violent 18.0% Total Violent 18.3%

Simple Assault 7.3% Simple Assault 8.1%

Aggravated Assault 3.7% Aggravated Assault 4.8%

Weapons Offenses 2.0% Weapons Offenses 1.5%

Murder 1.0% Murder 0.7%

Forcible Sex Offense 0.7% Hit and Run with Bodily Injury 0.5%

Child Abuse 0.7% Kidnapping 0.3%

Kidnapping 0.5% Child Abuse 0.3%

Robbery 0.5% Unspecified Manslaughter 0.2%

Hit and Run with Bodily Injury 0.3% Forcible Sex Offense 0.2%

Other Violent 1.2% Other Violent 1.7%

*The sum of the individual offense rates in this Appendix may not equal the total due to rounding.
United States Sentencing Commission

43

Retroactivity Group Comparison Group

Other Drugs

Total Violent 17.1% Total Violent 15.3%

Simple Assault 5.7% Simple Assault 6.9%

Weapons Offenses 3.8% Aggravated Assault 3.8%

Murder 1.9% Murder 0.8%

Robbery 1.9% Kidnapping 0.8%

Aggravated Assault 1.9% Forcible Sex Offense 0.8%

Forcible Sex Offense 1.0% Robbery 0.8%

Other Violent 1.0% Hit and Run with Bodily Injury 0.8%

Other Violent 0.8%

*The sum of the individual offense rates in this Appendix may not equal the total due to rounding.
United States Sentencing Commission

44

Appendix E

Figure E-1. Recidivism Rates by Primary Drug Type and Race/Ethnicity

27.1%

30.4%

24.7%

29.0%

30.3%

33.0%

26.4%

28.4%

White

Black

Hispanic

Other

All Drugs

Retroactivity Group Comparison Group

25.9%

23.7%

19.9%

5.6%

17.9%

20.5%

17.9%

37.9%

White

Black

Hispanic

Powder Cocaine

Other

41.4%

37.5%

33.0%

28.6%

28.7%

35.3%

36.7%

50.0%

White

Black

Hispanic

Other

Crack Cocaine

54.0%

37.8%

26.6%

41.3%

33.0%

22.9%

White

Black

Hispanic

Other

Heroin

0.0% 0.0%

23.6%

22.0%

38.2%

14.3%

20.5%

27.1%

29.4%

20.7%

White

Black

Hispanic

Other

Marijuana

29.8%

38.6%

26.4%

37.1%

28.9%

35.1%

28.7%

29.5%

White

Black

Hispanic

Other

Meth

35.9%

32.4%

33.3%

20.8%

27.4%

27.1%

31.0%

20.0%

White

Black

Hispanic

Other

Other Drugs
United States Sentencing Commission

45

Figure E-2. Recidivism Rates by Primary Drug Type and Gender

28.6%

21.4%

30.8%

26.7%

Male

Female

All Drugs

Retroactivity Group Comparison Group

19.8%

14.4%

22.3%

22.2%

Male

Female

Powder 

Cocaine

36.1%

13.4%

37.8%

27.3%

Male

Crack 

Female

Cocaine

33.2%

10.5%

37.1%

23.5%

Male

Heroin

Female

25.0%

30.2%

29.4%

25.0%

Male

Female

Marijuana

29.9%

25.2%

30.3%

26.7%

Male

Meth

Female

27.6%

24.6%

33.3%

37.5%

Male

Other 

Drugs

Female
United States Sentencing Commission

46

Figure E-3. Recidivism Rates by Primary Drug Type and Educational Attainment

31.6%

27.6%

21.6%

17.9%

33.8%

31.2%

22.7%

12.8%

Less than High School Graduate

High School Graduate

Some College

College Graduate

All Drugs

Retroactivity Group Comparison Group

23.0%

18.1%

16.3%

19.5%

24.3%

23.3%

18.6%

8.3%

Less than High School Graduate

High School Graduate

Some College

College Graduate

Powder 

Cocaine

36.9%

35.6%

28.3%

16.7%

40.1%

38.5%

26.2%

20.0%

Less than High School Graduate

High School Graduate

Some College

College Graduate

Crack 

Cocaine

36.2%

26.2%

29.3%

9.1%

41.8%

36.8%

22.5%

7.1%

Less than High School Graduate

High School Graduate

Some College

College Graduate

Heroin

31.3%

24.5%

18.8%

13.3%

36.0%

25.9%

25.6%

18.5%

Less than High School Graduate

High School Graduate

Some College

College Graduate

Marijuana

33.2%

29.0%

21.1%

20.0%

31.0%

31.4%

22.2%

11.8%

Less than High School Graduate

High School Graduate

Some College

College Graduate

Meth

22.2%

30.7%

25.7%

25.0%

38.1%

34.8%

31.6%

12.5%

Less than High School Graduate

High School Graduate

Some College

Other Drugs

College Graduate
United States Sentencing Commission

47

Figure E-4. Recidivism Rates by Primary Drug Type and Age at Release

41.9%

32.2%

23.8%

16.0%

9.9%

47.5%

35.7%

24.8%

15.5%

11.7%

All Drugs

Retroactivity Group Comparison Group

36.3%

24.3%

21.0%

9.9%

10.1%

30.3%

22.7%

16.2%

12.8%

Powder Cocaine

4.1%

54.9%

43.6%

23.7%

18.7%

25.6%

51.1%

41.5%

22.2%

19.2%

Crack Cocaine

13.3%

55.0%

36.3%

23.6%

26.5%

26.3%

43.0%

29.5%

27.2%

29.8%

13.0%

Heroin

52.0%

32.9%

24.4%

16.7%

9.1%

38.3%

30.8%

22.3%

13.6%

8.7%

Marijuana

43.4%

37.4%

28.8%

15.1%

7.1%

44.4%

32.4%

31.3%

14.6%

12.4%

Meth

46.7%

40.7%

28.2%

13.0%

8.7%

32.9%

30.3%

23.6%

23.7%

10.7%

Other Drugs
United States Sentencing Commission

48

Figure E-5. Recidivism Rates by Primary Drug Type and Criminal History Category

68.8%

14.9%

21.8%

29.1%

35.8%

41.8%

48.5%

18.0%

23.6%

31.6%

40.3%

43.5%

51.0%

All Drugs

Retroactivity Group Comparison Group

13.9%

15.5%

28.1%

32.1%

41.3%

46.3%

11.8%

18.3%

20.4%

29.0%

33.7%

39.6%

Powder Cocaine

28.3%

32.3%

35.0%

38.9%

40.6%

49.5%

20.7%

29.0%

32.7%

36.2%

40.5%

Crack Cocaine

50.5%

19.2%

22.7%

38.7%

54.3%

54.1%

53.7%

13.8%

22.2%

38.6%

34.3%

45.2%

52.0%

Heroin

18.2%

22.7%

32.3%

52.3%

51.2%

48.6%

16.3%

18.8%

25.3%

36.6%

52.1%

62.9%

Marijuana

16.8%

22.1%

28.4%

40.7%

43.6%

53.6%

15.0%

21.0%

31.7%

39.8%

41.8%

46.4%

Meth

22.6%

32.4%

37.2%

40.8%

55.0%

17.0%

18.8%

27.9%

41.5%

60.0%

58.8%

Other Drugs
United States Sentencing Commission

49

Figure E-6. Recidivism Rates by Primary Drug Type and Weapon Involvement

27.5%

29.0%

30.5%

30.4%

No Weapon

All Drugs

Weapon

Retroactivity Group Comparison Group

19.1%

20.6%

22.4%

22.2%

No Weapon

Weapon

Powder Cocaine

34.7%

35.6%

37.1%

38.3%

No Weapon

Crack Cocaine

Weapon

28.6%

36.5%

36.0%

32.8%

No Weapon

Weapon

Heroin

25.8%

24.1%

30.6%

19.2%

No Weapon

Weapon

Marijuana

29.9%

27.4%

29.9%

29.1%

No Weapon

Weapon

Meth

26.9%

28.2%

35.5%

23.1%

No Weapon

Other Drugs

Weapon
United States Sentencing Commission

50

Figure E-7. Recidivism Rates by Primary Drug Type and Sentence Relative 

to the Guideline Range

27.9%

29.0%

27.3%

32.4%

30.4%

30.9%

46.6%

30.6%

28.0%

29.0%

Within

Above

§5K1.1

Other Gov't Sponsored

Other Below

All Drugs

Retroactivity Group Comparison Group

18.5%

13.3%

22.0%

14.3%

18.1%

24.3%

37.5%

22.3%

21.2%

16.0%

Within

Above

§5K1.1

Other Gov't Sponsored

Powder Cocaine

Other Below

34.7%

40.0%

33.9%

47.6%

40.0%

36.8%

61.9%

36.8%

34.6%

40.4%

Within

Above

§5K1.1

Other Gov't Sponsored

Other Below

Crack Cocaine

31.8%

33.3%

28.5%

40.0%

22.6%

35.6%

83.3%

39.9%

22.0%

33.0%

Within

Above

§5K1.1

Other Gov't Sponsored

Other Below

Heroin

27.4%

22.2%

19.3%

37.5%

32.1%

30.4%

33.3%

26.7%

36.5%

22.7%

Within

Above

§5K1.1

Other Gov't Sponsored

Other Below

Marijuana

29.9%

20.0%

28.3%

25.0%

28.1%

29.9%

36.4%

30.7%

25.1%

28.9%

Within

Above

§5K1.1

Other Gov't Sponsored

Other Below

Meth

24.6%

50.0%

28.8%

33.3%

39.1%

31.6%

28.6%

37.3%

33.3%

34.7%

Within

Above

§5K1.1

Other Gov't Sponsored

Other Below

Other Drugs
United States Sentencing Commission

51

Figure E-8. Recidivism Rates by Primary Drug Type and Sentence Length

29.7%

25.6%

31.6%

27.6%

Less than 10 Years

10 Years or More

All Drugs

Retroactivity Group Comparison Group

20.2%

18.5%

24.1%

16.8%

Less than 10 Years

10 Years or More

Powder 

Cocaine

40.9%

30.7%

41.3%

32.8%

Less than 10 Years

10 Years or More

Crack Cocaine

26.6%

22.8%

30.4%

16.4%

Less than 10 Years

10 Years or More

Marijuana

31.5%

26.7%

29.9%

29.1%

Less than 10 Years

10 Years or More

Meth

29.9%

9.6%

34.0%

31.6%

Less than 10 Years

10 Years or More

Other 

Drugs

31.8%

25.7%

37.1%

25.8%

Less than 10 Years

10 Years or More

Heroin
United States Sentencing Commission

52

ENDNOTES

1 U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, Guidelines Manual, App. C, amend. 

782 (effective Nov. 1, 2014) [hereinafter USSG].

2 USSG, App. C, amend. 782 (effective Nov. 1, 2014).

3 USSG §2D1.1(c).

4 USSG App. C, amend. 788 (effective Nov. 1, 2014).

5 In order to be eligible for a sentence reduction, an offender 

must have been serving a term of imprisonment, the guideline range 

applicable to the offender must have been lowered as a result of the 

Drugs Minus Two Amendment, and the offender’s release date had to 

be scheduled later than November 1, 2015. USSG App. C, amend. 788 

(effective Nov. 1, 2014).

6 USSG App. C, amend. 782 (effective Nov. 1, 2014); USSG App. 

C, amend. 788 (effective Nov. 1, 2014).

7 U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, 2014 Drug Guiuelines Amendment

Retroactivity Data Report 10 tbl.7 (2020), https://www.ussc.gov/sites/

default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/retroactivity-analyses/drugguidelines-amendment/20200324-Drug-Retro-Analysis.pdf.

8 USSG App. C, amend. 782 (effective Nov. 1, 2014).

9 USSG §2D1.1. Exceptions include cases where the offense of 

conviction establishes that death or serious bodily injury resulted.

10 USSG App. C, amend. 782 (effective Nov. 1, 2014).

11 Id. 

12 Id.

13 USSG §2D1.1, comment. (backg’d.).
United States Sentencing Commission

53

14 USSG App. C, amend. 782 (effective Nov. 1, 2014).

15 Id.

16 Id.

17 See U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, Recidivism Among Offenders

Receiving Retroactive Sentence Reductions: The 2007 Crack Cocaine

Amendment (2014), https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research

-and-publications/research-projects-and-surveys/

miscellaneous/20140527_Recidivism_2007_Crack_Cocaine_

Amendment.pdf [hereinafter Crack Minus Two Recidivism Study].

18 Id. at 3.

19 28 U.S.C. § 994(u).

20 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).

21 Id.

22 USSG §1B1.10.

23 USSG §1B1.10(a)(2)(B).

24 The guideline range for career offenders is determined under 

USSG §4B1.1 (Career Offender) and is not impacted by the Drug 

Quantity Table. See USSG §4B1.1(b). Therefore, the applicable 

guideline range for drug trafficking offenders who were also career 

offenders was not lowered by the Drugs Minus Two Amendment, and 

therefore those career offenders were not eligible for a retroactive 

sentence reduction. 

25 Offenders may also be ineligible because their drug quantity 

was so high that the offense level did not change, or because the type 

and quantity of drug they possessed triggered an offense level “floor” 

in the drug quantity table. In either of those situations, the guideline 

range would not be affected by the Drugs Minus Two Amendment and 

thus they would not be eligible for retroactive reduction in their term 
United States Sentencing Commission

54

of imprisonment. See USSG §2D1.1.

26 See U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, Report to Congress: Career

Offender Sentencing Enhancements 39 (2016), https://www.ussc.

gov/sites/default/files/pdf/news/congressional-testimony-and-reports/

criminal-history/201607_RtC-Career-Offenders.pdf ; U.S. Sentencing

Comm’n, Recidivism Among Federal Offenders: A Comprehensive

Overview 19 (2016), https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/

research-and-publications/research-publications/2016/recidivism_

overview.pdf [hereinafter 2016 Comprehensive Overview].

27 USSG §1B1.10, comment. (n.1(B)(ii)).

28 USSG App. C, amend. 788 (effective Nov. 1, 2014).

29 Id.

30 Id.

31 Id.

32 Most of the denials were due, at least in part, to a finding that 

the offender was ineligible under §1B1.10 (11,925 denials) or because 

the offense did not involve drugs (1,029 denials).

33 This category includes supervision violations, contempt of 

court, failure to appear, violation of a restraining order, and sex 

offender registration violations.

34 The dataset utilized in the course of conducting analyses 

included in this publication includes information obtained pursuant 

to an interagency agreement with the Federal Bureau of Investigation 

and therefore cannot be publicly released.
United States Sentencing Commission

55

35 A three-year follow-up period was used in the two previous 

recidivism reports and has been shown to be sufficient. The National 

Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals 

recommends a follow-up time of three years. See Michael D. Maltz, 

Recidivism 22 (2001). The eight-year follow-up period used in recent 

publications, such as U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, Recidivism Among

Federal Offenders: A Comprehensive Overview, while providing a more 

complete analysis, would delay the reporting of recidivism rates for the 

two groups an additional five years. See 2016 Comprehensive Overview, 

supra note 26, at 7.

36 After matching, a small number of offenders were discovered to 

be non-citizens and were removed from the study, resulting in 11 fewer 

offenders in the Retroactivity Group.

37 See 2016 Comprehensive Overview, supra 26, at 27.

38 Offenders generally serve their full sentences, less reductions 

for earned credit.

39 The original sentence differences between the two groups are 

largely the result of the sudden release of many of those receiving 

the retroactive application of the Drugs Minus Two Amendment. 

Most notably, the groups differ with respect to average original 

sentence. The Retroactivity Group had an average original sentence, 

before the retroactive reduction, which was substantially longer 

(128 months) than that of the Comparison Group’s sentence (89 

months). This difference is related to the flow of offenders through 

a prison population. Daily counts of a prison population show a 

larger percentage of offenders with longer sentences than those 

entering prison on that day (the admission count). The current prison 

population at any given time tends to overrepresent more offenders 

with longer sentences because these offenders accumulate in prison 

over time while those with shorter sentences are released relatively 

quickly. See James P. Lynch, A Comparison of Prison Use in England, 

Canada,West Germany, and the United States: A Limited Test of the 

Punitive Hypothesis, 79 J. Crim. Law & Criminology 180, 184 (1988). 
United States Sentencing Commission

56

Retroactive releases of the Drugs Minus Two Retroactivity Group show 

many offenders being released quickly within the initial days of the 

effective date of retroactivity. Retroactive releases of the Drugs Minus 

Two Retroactivity Group resulted in 2,973 offenders released on the 

first weekend of implementation, including a disproportionate number 

of offenders with longer sentences. The daily release of the Comparison 

Group never exceeded 100 offenders. Therefore, it is likely that the 

longer original sentence length of the Retroactivity Group is due to 

the large numbers of offenders with longer sentences being released in 

unusually high numbers. 

40 See Appendix B-1.

41 See Fed. Judicial Ctr., Reference Manual on Scientific

Evidence 303 (2011) (Reference Guide on Multiple Regression) for an 

overview of regression modeling.

42 All charts were generated using U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 

2014-16 Drugs -2 Retroactive Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, 

USSC_DM2_RECID1416. The Commission excluded cases from this 

analysis that were missing information necessary to perform the 

analysis.

43 A binary logit model with control variables was used to test the 

effect of the Retroactivity Group on a recidivism outcome compared to 

the Comparison Group. The effect was not statistically significant at 

the p < .05 level (p=.15). See Appendix B.

44 Recidivism events categorized as “court or supervision 

violations” may involve a wide range of conduct. This publication 

is not intended to comment on the seriousness of any such violation 

committed by an offender in the study group. 

45 See U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, The Effects of Aging on

Recidivism Among Federal Offenders (2017), https://www.ussc.

gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/researchpublications/2017/20171207_Recidivism-Age.pdf.

46 See U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, The Past Predicts the Future: 

Criminal History and Recidivism of Federal Offenders (2017), https://

www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/

research-publications/2017/20170309_Recidivism-CH.pdf.

47 USSG §4A1.1.
United States Sentencing Commission

57

48 For this report, an offense involving a weapon includes only 

a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) or the application of a Specific 

Offense Characteristic (SOC) indicating the involvement of a weapon 

in the offense.

49 See U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, Recidivism Among Federal Drug

Trafficking Offenders (2017), https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/

pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2017/20170221_

Recidivism-Drugs.pdf.

50 See Tables B-2 through B-7 for the logistic regression tables. 

For each specific drug type, there was no statistically significant 

difference in the likelihood of recidivism for the Retroactivity Group 

relative to the Comparison Group. 

51 As noted above (supra note 44), this publication is not intended 

to comment on the seriousness of any such violation committed by an 

offender in the study group.
United States Sentencing Commission

www.ussc.gov

Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building

One Columbus Circle, N.E.

Suite 2-500, South Lobby

Washington, DC 20002-8002