Overview

In 2011, the Kentucky Legislature passed the Public Safety and O ender Accountability Act (House Bill 463), 

which sought to earn a greater public safety return on the state’s corrections spending. The measure included a 

mandatory reentry supervision policy that required every inmate to undergo a period of post-release supervision 

so that no inmates would be released from prison to communities without monitoring or support.

This brief summarizes recent state corrections data and an independent evaluation of the policy commissioned 

by The Pew Charitable Trusts, which found that mandatory reentry supervision: 

• Improved public safety by helping reduce new o ense rates by 30 percent. 

• Resulted in a net savings of approximately 872 prison beds per year. 

• Saved more than $29 million in the 27 months after the policy took e ect.

Background

From 1999 to 2009, Kentucky’s prison population increased by 45 percent, a growth rate that outpaced nearly 

every other state.1 Corrections spending also rose steeply, increasing more than 200 percent from fi scal year 

1990 to fi scal 2010.2

These trends prompted Kentucky leaders in 2010 to appoint a Task Force on the Penal Code and Controlled 

Substances Act. After analyzing state sentencing and corrections data, the task force produced recommendations 

that became the basis for the Public Safety and O ender Accountability Act the following year.3 Passed 

unanimously in the Senate and with one dissenting vote in the House, the law changed multiple sentencing and 

release policies to prioritize expensive prison beds for serious o enders.4 A portion of the resulting fi nancial 

savings was reinvested in programs and practices proved to reduce reo ending rates.

Between 1990 and 2012, the proportion of Kentucky inmates who served their entire sentence behind bars, 

known as the max-out rate, had varied from 30 to 50 percent.5 These o enders received no supervision to 

A brief from June 2014

Mandatory Reentry Supervision

Evaluating the Kentucky Experience

Getty Images/Lonely Planet Image
2

help guide their reentry into society. The mandatory reentry supervision provision of the 2011 law was based 

on data showing that the period immediately following an o ender’s release from prison is critically important 

for reducing recidivism. It also refl ected research and a growing consensus among corrections policymakers 

that many lower risk inmates could serve shorter prison terms without undermining public safety, and that 

reinvestment of prison savings into evidence-based community supervision practices and programs can cut 

reo ending rates.6

Kentucky’s mandatory reentry supervision took e ect Jan. 1, 2012, requiring that all inmates be supervised after 

release from prison. Under this policy, inmates not granted parole are either released to supervision six months 

before the end of their sentences or are ordered to serve an additional year of supervision after the end of their 

prison terms, depending on their crime and their classifi cation in the correctional system (see Figure 1). The 

Legislature made mandatory supervision retroactive for o enders getting six months of supervision, applying it to 

current and future inmates.

Figure 1

Kentucky Requires Supervision of All Inmates Upon Release 

Law created two mandatory reentry supervision groups based on o ense, 

security level

Six-month mandatory reentry supervision carved out 

of sentence for inmates who are:

One year post-incarceration supervision added to end

of sentence for inmates who are:

Not convicted of a Class A felony or capital o ense Not eligible for parole

Not classifi ed as maximum or close security Convicted of a Class A felony or capital o ense

Not granted discretionary parole 6 months prior to expiration of sentence Classifi ed as maximum or close security

© 2014 The Pew Charitable Trusts

With a growing population under supervision, Kentucky signifi cantly expanded its Division of Parole and 

Probation. More than 150 sta members have been added since July 2011, including 105 probation and parole 

o cers, 24 probation and parole investigators, 11 assistant supervisors, and 12 support sta .7 The 2011 law also 

required that o enders be supervised using proven practices for reducing recidivism such as evidence-based 

substance abuse and mental health programs. By 2016, 75 percent of state expenditures on supervision and 

intervention programs for pretrial defendants, inmates, and those on probation and parole must be spent on 

programs that research demonstrates are e ective at reducing recidivism.8

Evaluation 

The Pew-commissioned evaluation explored the public safety and cost-saving components of mandatory reentry 

supervision during the policy’s fi rst year. The study, conducted by Avinash Bhati of the analytical consulting fi rm 

Maxarth, LLC, compared the outcomes of o enders released under the new policy with a control group of similar 

inmates released before the policy took e ect.

The initial cohort consisted of 1,905 o enders—all those released to mandatory reentry supervision between Jan. 

1 and May 31, 2012. This group was chosen because available follow-up data allowed for progress to be tracked 
3

for one year. Because the policy was applied retroactively, the sample included inmates with less than six months 

remaining on their sentences. The sample did not include the more serious inmates subject to a year of postincarceration supervision, since there are not yet signifi cant numbers of these o enders.

The pre-policy group included two types of o enders released between Jan. 1, 2009, and Dec. 31, 2011—parolees 

and “discharges,” or o enders released with no supervision upon the completion of their sentence. This group 

totaled 8,806—779 parolees and 8,027 discharged inmates. The parolees had six months or less remaining on 

their sentences at the time of release.

All of the pre-policy group members met the requirements for mandatory reentry supervision. The two groups 

were compared on individual attributes such as demographics, education level, felony class, o ense type, risk 

classifi cation, and gang a liation. 

Key fi ndings

The evaluation results add to a growing body of evidence showing that post-release supervision can cut crime 

and corrections costs. 

Mandatory reentry supervision releases had lower recidivism rates than pre-policy 

releases

Inmates released to mandatory reentry supervision were 30 percent less likely than the pre-policy group to return to 

prison for a new crime within one year of release. While 4.2 percent of the mandatory reentry supervision releases 

were returned to prison for a new crime during that period, the fi gure was 6 percent in the pre-policy group. 

The mandatory reentry supervision group also had 11 percent fewer technical violations, such as failing drug 

tests or missing appointments with their parole o cers, than the small portion of the pre-policy group that was 

released to parole—34.8 percent and 39.3 percent, respectively. 

Figure 2

Mandatory Reentry Supervision Policy Lowers Reo ending Rate 

Supervised o enders less likely to return to prison for a new crime within

one year of release

© 2014 The Pew Charitable Trusts

0% 

2% 

4% 

6% 

Pre-policy

6.0%

Mandatory reentry supervision

Return to prison for a new crime within one year of release

4.2%

30%

2000 2011 

0% 

5% 

10% 

15% 

20% 

25% 

30% 

35% 

Violent Property Drug 

23%

22% 25%

32%

20%

31%
4

Revocations of mandatory reentry supervision releases were driven by technical 

violations

Looking more closely at post-release misconduct, mandatory reentry supervision o enders were more likely 

than the pre-policy group to return to prison, with 28 percent returning compared to 8 percent of the pre-policy 

o enders. However, 85 percent of the mandatory reentry supervision o enders were reincarcerated for technical 

violations; only 15 percent were returned to prison for a new crime. The opposite pattern applies to the prepolicy o enders, with 77 percent returned for committing new crimes and 23 percent for rule violations. Since 

this group of released inmates either had short supervision periods or avoided supervision altogether, it is not 

surprising that they had dramatically lower rates of return to prison for technical violations.

Mandatory reentry supervision releases spent less time in prison than the prepolicy releases

Even with the higher rate of return for technical violations, inmates released to mandatory reentry supervision 

spent an average of 3.5 fewer months in prison than those released before the policy took e ect. For both groups, 

the total length of recorded time included the average time in prison prior to release along with any additional 

time served after release because of revocation.

The shorter length of stay by the mandatory reentry supervision group resulted in a net savings of approximately 

872 prison beds per year for Kentucky. These calculations are based on the January-May cohort to allow for a 

one-year follow-up period. As such, the estimates should be considered a lower limit because the policy went 

into e ect retroactively and the fi rst few months included inmates who may have had less than six months left 

to serve. Moving forward, the estimated lengths of stay compared with the pre-policy cohort are expected to 

decrease further, resulting in increased bed space savings. 

Figure 3

Technical Violations Driving Returns to Prison Within a Year 

of Release

Violations account for 85 percent of mandatory reentry supervision returns

to prison

* Includes parolees with 

six months or less remaining

on their sentences at the time of 

release.

© 2014 The Pew Charitable Trusts

0% 

10% 

20% 

30% 

Pre-policy Mandatory reentry supervision

New crime Violation 

28%

8%

*
5

Figure 4

Mandatory Reentry Supervision Policy Saving Prison Beds

Supervised releases spent less time in prison than the pre-policy group

© 2014 The Pew Charitable Trusts

January -May 2013

mandatory reentry 

supervision releases

Average reduction in 

prison time served

Total estimated 

annual prison-bed 

savings

1,905 o enders 3.5 months less 

than pre-policy 

releases 872 prison beds

The new policy has saved Kentucky more than $1 million per month

The Kentucky Department of Corrections recently calculated the prison-bed savings into fi nancial terms 

and estimated that between January 2012 and March 2014 the mandatory reentry supervision policy saved 

approximately $29.3 million.9 These savings refl ect both the need for fewer prison beds and the di erence in cost 

between institutional and community corrections. In fi scal 2013, the average cost to incarcerate an o ender in 

a Kentucky state facility was $59.72 per day, nearly 20 times the $3.04 per day to supervise an o ender in the 

community.10

Policy implications 

Research increasingly shows that the period immediately following an o ender’s release from prison can be 

pivotal in preventing recidivism. In addition, a growing body of evidence shows that many inmates can serve 

shorter prison terms without undermining public safety. This means that policies such as Kentucky’s, which carve 

out supervision time from prison sentences, make good fi scal and correctional sense.

Pew’s evaluation determined that mandatory reentry supervision is fulfi lling its intended purpose. Inmates 

released to supervision under the policy had 30 percent fewer returns to prison for a new crime and 11 percent 

fewer violations of their supervision rules than the pre-policy group. There were signifi cant savings for taxpayers 

as well, since the policy reduced the need for state prison beds, which in Kentucky cost nearly 20 times 

more than community supervision. Some of these savings have been reinvested in community corrections, 

strengthening supervision, evidence-based programs, and treatment.

Mandatory reentry supervision is working in Kentucky.

Inmates used to be released straight from prison to the street with 

no supervision, no accountability, no support. Under the reform, 

those interventions are happening. It has been a fi scal success, 

saving the commonwealth over $1 million per month. But more 

importantly, it’s been good for public safety by cutting recidivism.”

Rep. John Tilley
6

In addition to Kentucky, other states—including, Kansas, New Hampshire, Ohio, South Carolina and West Virginia—

also have recently enacted policies requiring o enders to serve a period of supervision after release. Other states 

can closely examine their release policies and seek similar opportunities to reduce recidivism and costs to taxpayers.

Endnotes

1 The Pew Charitable Trusts, 2011 Kentucky Reforms Cut Recidivism, Costs (July 2011), http://www.pewstates.org/uploadedFiles/PCS_

Assets/2011/2011_Kentucky_Reforms_Cut_Recidivism.pdf.

2 Ibid.

3 Kentucky General Assembly, Public Safety and O ender Accountability Act of 2011 (H.B. 463) (2011), http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statrev/

acts2011rs/0002.pdf.

4 The Pew Charitable Trusts, 2011 Kentucky Reforms Cut Recidivism, Costs.

5 The Pew Charitable Trusts, Max Out: The Rise in Prison Inmates Released Without Supervision (June 2014), www.pewstates.org/

uploadedFiles/PCS_Assets/2014/Pew_MaxOut_Report.pdf.

6 The Pew Charitable Trusts, Time Served: The High Cost, Low Return of Longer Prison Terms (June 2012), http://www.pewstates.org/research/

reports/time-served-85899394616.

7 LaDonna Thompson, “An Evaluation of the Kentucky Mandatory Reentry Supervision (MRS) Policy” (presentation at the annual meeting 

of the American Society of Criminology, Atlanta, Nov. 20, 2013).

8 The Pew Charitable Trusts, 2011 Kentucky Reforms Cut Recidivism, Costs.

9 Savings calculated by the Kentucky Department of Corrections. These calculations are based on the number of days released inmates 

are not incarcerated multiplied by the daily cost to incarcerate, less the additional daily supervision cost for each mandatory reentry 

supervision o ender. They do not refl ect other implementation costs associated with H.B. 463, including the costs hiring of additional 

probation and parole o cers.

10 Kentucky Department of Corrections, “Cost to Incarcerate-FY13” (August 2013), http://corrections.ky.gov/about/Documents/

Research%20and%20Statistics/Annual%20Reports/Cost%20to%20 Incarcerate%202013.pdf. The per diem cost to incarcerate 

includes: medical, mental health, education, substance abuse, central o ce, training, and institutional costs (including personnel and 

operations). It does not include capital construction projects. Supervision includes probation and parole.

Acknowledgements

The Pew Charitable Trusts’ public safety performance project would like to thank Avinash Bhati of Maxarth, 

LLC, for conducting the analysis for the study and acknowledge the contributions of Carl Wicklund and Beth 

Bjerregaard as external reviewers. Support for this brief was provided by the following sta members: Adam Gelb, 

Karla Dhungana, and Ben Adams. Valuable research support was also provided by the following Pew sta : 

Kristin Centrella, Rebecca Singer Cohen, Jennifer V. Doctors, Jennifer Peltak, Lesa Rair, Gaye Williams, and 

Christina Zurla, as well as former sta members Brian Elderbroom, Ryan King, and Jennifer Laudano. We also 

would like to thank Jenifer Warren for writing and editing.

The Pew Charitable Trusts is driven by the power of knowledge to solve today’s most challenging problems. Pew applies a rigorous, analytical 

approach to improve public policy, inform the public, and stimulate civic life.

Contact: Lesa Rair, communications  Email: lrair@pewtrusts.org  Project website: pewtrusts.org