Recidivism: tracking, methodology and reporting. (Survey Summary).
The length of time released inmates are tracked varies considerably among the systems. In Canada, the average length is two years, while in the United States, it ranges, from one month to indefinitely, as
reported by Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Tennessee. Louisiana continues tracking for eight years, depending on the circumstances. Florida tracks from one to 60 months, but a longer period is possible, while Michigan follows up until parole is terminated, for up to four years. The average reported time frame for tracking released inmates in U.S. systems is three years.
Sixty-seven percent of the U.S. departments of correction developed their own tracking methods and 10 percent used systems developed by other agencies. The remaining 23 percent of the systems have no tracking systems in place, but 11 of them have plans to implement them in the future.
Formal tracking systems were developed internally in 70 percent of the participating U.S. systems. Illinois and Texas use the CCH (Computerized Criminal History) system developed by their respective state police departments. All other computerized systems are specifically stated in Table 2 and vary widely. Manual file checking continues to be used in Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Rhode Island and West Virginia.
When asked if a separate analysis of recidivism among releasees who had been incarcerated for sex offenses was provided within their current tracking systems, 50 percent of the U.S. respondents answered yes. Sex offenders usually are not tracked separately in Canada, but Manitoba is in the implementation stage. In the United States, Kansas and Rhode Island will track former sex offenders by special request.
Thirty-six percent of U.S. and 32 percent of Canadian systems provide information on recidivism by including results in departmental publications available to the public and by posting them on the Internet. Eight systems report their figures in intradepartmental publications only, while Illinois makes its information available upon request and by publication in an annual statistical presentation. Recidivism information is not published in Rhode Island, but it is available upon request.
Findings become part of formal research studies in only nine of the reporting U.S. systems and none in Canada. Of the formal studies, most were developed by a state agency or in conjunction with a university. A private consulting firm conducted the study reported by Florida. The majority of systems were unable to provide information regarding whether recidivism rates among male or female offenders had increased during the past year. Eight U.S. systems noted an increase in males and nine systems noted an increase in females.
Systems were asked if they keep records of programs in which inmates have participated while incarcerated that might affect their rate of return. Forty-seven percent of the reporting U.S. systems keep such records, but in varying degrees, and include in those reports at least a portion of programs (i.e., treatment, education, etc.). Regarding the systems that compare the types of crimes for which recidivists had been incarcerated with the types of crimes for which they are returned to the systems, 51 percent do not conduct such a study, but five systems are planning to implement the practice. Again, as with general recidivism information, Rhode Island will provide pertinent analysis details upon request.
In a June 2002 Bureau of Justice Statistics special report titled Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994, by statisticians Patrick A. Langan, Ph.D., and David J. Levin, Ph.D., 272,111 former inmates were tracked for three years following their release. The information was gathered from 15 DOCs (from which the offenders had been released), 15 criminal history repositories and from FBI records and it noted that 67.5 percent (or 183,675) of those 272,111 former inmates were rearrested within the three years. The data-gathering systems that responded to this Corrections Compendium survey indicated that they were using expanded, sophisticated analysis methods for determining recidivism rates. Perhaps this will reflect a change in the results of future BJS and other reports.
RECIDIVISM--TABLE 1: TRACKING FROMAL LENGTH OF SYSTEM TRACKING TRACKING METHOD TRACKING ALABAMA No response ALASKA No N/A N/A ARIZONA Yes Return to prison 3 years with a new felony conviction ARKANSAS No N/A N/A CALIFORNIA Yes Return to prison 1-2 years COLORADO Yes Return to prison 3 years CONNECTICUT No N/A N/A DELAWARE No N/A N/A DISTRICT OF No Return to prison 5 years COLUMBIA FLORIDA Yes Rearrest, 1-60 months; reconviction, longer follow- recommitment up is possible GEORGIA Yes Reconviction 3 years HAWAII No N/A N/A IDAHO No N/A Not defined ILLINOIS Yes Return to prison 3 years INDIANA No Return to Indiana 3 years or DOC more depend- ing on project IOWA No Study completed in 1-time study 2001 on inmates released in 1996 covered multiple issues KANSAS Yes Return to prison 5 years KENTUCKY Yes Return to prison 2 years LOUISIANA Yes Return to prison Since 1994 with a new felony conviction or technical revocation MAINE No N/A N/A MARYLAND Yes Repeat 5 years incarceration and supervision cycles, measured for a new offense MASSACHUSETTS Yes Reconviction and 3 years return to prison (1) MICHIGAN Yes Return to prison Until parole term is expired, up to 4 years MINNESOTA Yes Reconviction and 3 years return to prison (2) MISSISSIPPI No Return to a state Indefinitely DOC facility MISSOURI Yes Return to prison 2, 3, 5 or 10 years MONTANA Yes/No Return to prison 3 years NEBRASKA Yes 3 years NEVADA No N/A N/A NEW HAMPSHIRE No N/A N/A NEW JERSEY Yes Rearrest, 3 years reconviction and return to prison NEW MEXICO No response NEW YORK Yes Return to prison 3 years NOTH CAROLINA No N/A N/A NORTH DAKOTA Yes Return to prison 3 years connected to a new crime OHIO Yes Return to prison 1, 3, 5 or 10 years OKLAHOMA Yes Return to prison Indefinitely OREGON Yes New felony 3 years conviction PENNSYLVANIA Yes Return to state 6 months, 1 DOC year or 3 years RHODE ISLAND Yes Resentenced within 3 years 2 years of release from a period of incarceration SOUTH CAROLINA Yes Return to prison 3 years SOUTH DAKOTA Yes Return to Indefinitely prison (3) TENNESSEE No Depends on need/ Indefinitely interest of the requester TEXAS Yes Return to prison 3 years UTAH Yes Return to prison 3 years VERMONT No response VIRGINIA No response WASHINGSTON Yes Return to prison 5 years for a new felony conviction or parole violation WEST VIRGINIA No Return to prison 3 years for a new felony WISCONSIN No N/A N/A WYOMING No N/A N/A FEDERAL BUREAU No response OF PRISONS CANADIAN SYSTEMS MANITOBA No Reconviction was 2 years studied on a 1-time basis in 2000 NOVA SCOTIA Yes Readmission to Indefinitely probation and return to prison ONTARIO Yes (4) Reconviction 2 years YUKON TERRITORY No Each admittance N/A is recorded CORRECTIONAL Yes Return to prison 2 years SERVICE CANADA after expiration of a previous federal sentence; also looking at revocation of parole (revocation with offense or with an outstanding charge) RETURNING RECIDIVISTS DEVELOPING SYSTEM Own System Other Systems FUTURE SYSTEM? ALABAMA ALASKA N/A N/A Yes, by 6/30/03 ARIZONA Yes No N/A ARKANSAS N/A N/A Yes, within 1 year CALIFORNIA N/A N/A N/A COLORADO Yes CONNECTICUT N/A N/A N/A DELAWARE N/A N/A No DISTRICT OF Yes Yes, currently COLUMBIA in progress FLORIDA Yes N/A GEORGIA Yes N/A HAWAII N/A Computerized No database IDAHO Yes N/A Yes, no time frame established ILLINOIS Yes N/A INDIANA Yes No Yes, by October 2002 IOWA No Interstate Yes, by January Identification 2003, estimated Index KANSAS Yes N/A KENTUCKY Yes N/A LOUISIANA Yes N/A MAINE N/A N/A Yes, draft policy by December 2002 MARYLAND Yes N/A MASSACHUSETTS No Inmate Board N/A of Probation and county correctional facilities MICHIGAN Yes N/A MINNESOTA Yes N/A MISSISSIPPI Yes Yes MISSOURI Yes N/A MONTANA Yes NEBRASKA Yes N/A NEVADA N/A N/A No NEW HAMPSHIRE N/A N/A Yes, possibly in 2003 NEW JERSEY No Interstate NA Identification Index NEW MEXICO NEW YORK Yes N/A NOTH CAROLINA N/A No NORTH DAKOTA Yes N/A OHIO Yes N/A OKLAHOMA Yes N/A OREGON Yes N/A PENNSYLVANIA Yes N/A RHODE ISLAND Yes N/A SOUTH CAROLINA Yes N/A SOUTH DAKOTA Yes N/A TENNESSEE No State bureau Yes, within 2 of investiga- years tion and other agencies TEXAS Yes N/A UTAH Yes N/A VERMONT VIRGINIA WASHINGSTON Yes N/A WEST VIRGINIA Yes No WISCONSIN N/A No WYOMING No Yes, by March 2003 FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS CANADIAN SYSTEMS MANITOBA No Yes, by 2003 NOVA SCOTIA Yes Yes ONTARIO Yes YUKON TERRITORY N/A No CORRECTIONAL Yes Yes, still in SERVICE CANADA pilot stage SYSTEM COMMENTS ALABAMA ALASKA Trying to agree on a definition ARIZONA ARKANSAS Source: inmate tracking system CALIFORNIA COLORADO CONNECTICUT DELAWARE DISTRICT OF Source: departmental database and historical COLUMBIA records FLORIDA GEORGIA HAWAII Occasional studies are conducted by the Department of Attorney General IDAHO ILLINOIS INDIANA Formulated by committee IOWA Sources: existing studies and personal experience KANSAS KENTUCKY LOUISIANA MAINE Source: DOC policies from ACA-accredited states MARYLAND MASSACHUSETTS MICHIGAN MINNESOTA MISSISSIPPI Currently storing data for retrieval with increasing capacity MISSOURI MONTANA Formal tracking is only by movements NEBRASKA NEVADA Tracking is used to ensure that inmates are managed under appropriate laws NEW HAMPSHIRE Source: outside sources NEW JERSEY NEW MEXICO NEW YORK NOTH CAROLINA State Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission completes biennial studies NORTH DAKOTA OHIO OKLAHOMA OREGON PENNSYLVANIA RHODE ISLAND SOUTH CAROLINA SOUTH DAKOTA TENNESSEE Sources: Other state models, current research meetings with relevant individuals TEXAS Tracking is conducted by the Criminal Justice Policy Council UTAH VERMONT VIRGINIA WASHINGSTON WEST VIRGINIA WISCONSIN WYOMING Source: Other agencies' policies and reports FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS CANADIAN SYSTEMS MANITOBA Source: contract with University of Winnipeg for 1 study NOVA SCOTIA ONTARIO Currently working with Correctional Service Canada to obtain a national rate YUKON TERRITORY CORRECTIONAL Source: working with provinces and territories SERVICE CANADA (responsible for those convicted for a sentence of less than 2 years) to track offenders not returning to CSC (offenders sentenced to 2 or more years) and who are convicted at the provincial level using a sample of former federal offenders. (1) MASSACHUSETTS: Beginning with the 1997 recidivism report currently being written, reconviction and recommitment to prison were used; prior to the 1997 report, only recommitment to prison was used. (2) MINNESOTA: Rearrest date is collected by the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension and is available, but may be incomplete and, therefore, unreliable. (3)SOUTH DAKOTA: Tracking based on a percentage of prison admissions previously in the state DOC. (4) ONTARIO: Tracking stopped in July 2001 due to programming of a new system to work in conjunction with the Offender tracking Information System. RECIDIVISM--TABLE 2: TRACKING METHODS SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM IN PLACE Internal External ALABAMA No response ALASKA System being developed ARIZONA Yes Yes ARKANSAS Yes Yes CALIFORNIA Yes Yes COLORADO Yes Yes CONNECTICUT No DELAWARE No DISTRICT OF Yes Yes COLUMBIA FLORIDA Yes Yes GEORGIA Yes HAWAII No IDAHO Yes No ILLINOIS Yes Yes INDIANA Yes Yes IOWA Yes Yes KANSAS Yes Yes KENTUCKY Yes Yes LOUISIANA Yes Yes MAINE System being developed MARYLAND Yes Yes MASSACHUSETTS Yes Yes MICHIGAN Yes Yes MINNESOTA Yes Yes MISSISSIPPI Yes Yes MISSOURI Yes Yes MONTANA Yes Yes NEBRASKA Yes Yes NEVADA No NEW HAMPSHIRE No NEW JERSEY Yes Yes NEW MEXICO No response NEW YORK Yes Yes NORTH CAROLINA No NORTH DAKOTA Yes Yes OHIO Yes Yes OKLAHOMA Yes Yes OREGON Yes Yes PENNSYLVANIA Yes Yes RHODE ISLAND Yes Yes SOUTH CAROLINA Yes Yes SOUTH DAKOTA Yes Yes TENNESSEE System being developed TEXAS Yes Yes UTAH Yes Yes VERMONT No response VIRGINIA No response WASHINGTON Yes Yes WEST VIRGINIA Yes Yes WISCONSIN No WYOMING System being developed FEDERAL BUREAU No response OF PRISONS CANADIAN SYSTEMS MANITOBA System being developed NOVA SCOTIA Yes Yes ONTARIO Yes Yes YUKON TERRITORY No CORRECTIONAL Yes Yes SERVICE CANADA SYSTEM COMPUTERIZED SYSTEM ALABAMA ALASKA Power Builder on the front end and informing on the back end; system being developed SAS ARIZONA SAS ARKANSAS System being developed using EOMIS, SPSS, ACCESS, EXCEL CALIFORNIA MVS COLORADO Colorado DOC Offender-Based Tracking System; pc databases CONNECTICUT DELAWARE DISTRICT OF Jail and Community Corrections System and Crystal COLUMBIA Reports FLORIDA Florida DOC Offender-Based Information System; Florida department of Law Enforcement OBTS; SAS GEORGIA UNISYS 2200 mainframe application developed internally approximately 20 years ago HAWAII No system in place IDAHO Colorado DOC OBTS; Reflections ILLINOIS Illinois DOC OBTS; SPSS INDIANA ACCESS; SAS IOWA ACCESS; ICON; data from DOCs, Department of Public Safety, Interstate Juvenile Delinquency Index and the justice data warehouse KANSAS AS400 system; Offender Management Information System KENTUCKY Mainframe application developed in-house in 1977 LOUISIANA CAJUN (Correction and Justice Unified Network) MAINE MARYLAND COBOL programs match OBSCIS cases monthly and are transferred to spreadsheets for analysis MASSACHUSETTS Massachusetts DOC VAX computer system MICHIGAN Corrections Management Information System MINNESOTA BCA data, along with the department's offender management system; SPSS MISSISSIPPI Automated offender files and VSAM files MISSOURI DOC database of offender activity MONTANA Queries are run against a Movement Table file NEBRASKA Inmate database NEVADA NEW HAMPSHIRE NEW JERSEY State police Computerized Criminal History and Interstate Identification Index for out-of-state arrests NEW MEXICO NEW YORK SPSS on mainframe NORTH CAROLINA NORTH DAKOTA EXCEL OHIO DOC Offender Tracking System OKLAHOMA DOC Offender Information System OREGON DOC Corrections Information System PENNSYLVANIA In-house application RHODE ISLAND N/A SOUTH CAROLINA Offender management system developed in-house using an IDMS database SOUTH DAKOTA State's mainframe-based inmate records system on new admissions with prior incarceration records TENNESSEE TEXAS Texas Department of Public Safety CCH; Texas Department of Criminal Justice--Admission; on-hand project files UTAH OTRACK VERMONT VIRGINIA WASHINGTON OBTS; DOC electronic file system WEST VIRGINIA WISCONSIN WYOMING FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS CANADIAN SYSTEMS MANITOBA DOC offender management system NOVA SCOTIA Justice-oriented information system and community corrections information system ONTARIO SPSS, OTIS, SRS YUKON TERRITORY CORRECTIONAL Pilot system being considered SERVICE CANADA SEPARATE SYSTEM USED SYSTEM OTHER METHODS FOR SEX OFFENDERS? ALABAMA ALASKA Manual tracking with information kept by program administrators Involves collection of data from the FBI ARKANSAS CALIFORNIA No COLORADO Yes CONNECTICUT DELAWARE No DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FLORIDA No GEORGIA Yes HAWAII Yes IDAHO No ILLINOIS Yes INDIANA Consult with probation Developing a tracking system department IOWA Hard copy files; a Yes review is needed for this process KANSAS Yes, if by special request KENTUCKY Yes LOUISIANA Yes MAINE N/A MARYLAND No MASSACHUSETTS Inmate Board of No Probation, data from county correctional facilities, inmate files, state parole board MICHIGAN Manual offender files Yes MINNESOTA Yes, by the sex offender services unit, including impact of treatment on recidivism MISSISSIPPI Prerelease No information, manually MISSOURI Yes MONTANA No NEBRASKA Yes NEVADA N/A NEW HAMPSHIRE No Yes NEW JERSEY NEW MEXICO NEW YORK Yes NORTH CAROLINA N/A NORTH DAKOTA No, but considering implementing OHIO Yes; studies have been completed in the past and posted on the Internet, net, but not routinely OKLAHOMA Yes OREGON Yes PENNSYLVANIA Yes RHODE ISLAND Data files are Yes, but only upon request electronic but recidivism rates are generated manually by tracking each offender for a return to prison SOUTH CAROLINA No SOUTH DAKOTA Recidivism No studies based on releases, using downloaded data from mainframe records system manipulated through ACCESS TENNESSEE Will be available in the system being developed TEXAS Yes UTAH Yes VERMONT VIRGINIA Yes WASHINGTON Manually checking No release lists to WEST VIRGINIA Manually checking No release list to determine past recidivism activity WISCONSIN In-house programming No WYOMING FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS CANADIAN SYSTEMS MANITOBA Yes, will be included NOVA SCOTIA Periodic data No extracts (micro-data) to pc system ONTARIO Manual checking Ability for separate tracking, but not used to date YUKON TERRITORY Sentenced admissions No through a manual log tracking system CORRECTIONAL Sample lists are No distributed to the provinces for data maintenance SERVICE CANADA Table 2: Logistic Regression Coefficients For Probability of Fine Imposition Coefficient Odds Ratio Offense Type * (Drug) Violent .088 1.092 Property .474 1.607 Public Order ** 1.200 3.320 Offense Degree (Third) First/Second -.341 .711 Fourth .776 2.173 Race White -.005 .995 Hispanic -.061 .941 County Type *** (Urban) Suburban .602 1.825 Rural *** 1.271 3.565 Age ** (17-25) 26-35 -.047 .954 36 and over ** 1.076 2.933 Married -.032 .968 Children -.523 .593 Sex 1.53 1.165 Education .040 1.041 Prior Conviction .420 1.521 Prior Incarceration -.620 .538 Employment ** .737 2.090 Pretrial Incarceration -.054 .948 Incarceration * -.603 .547 Mitigating Conduct * .982 2.670 Mitigating Circumstance .228 1.256 Constant -2.931 .053 * p<.5, ** p<.01, *** p<.001
For information on monthly surveys featured in this or past issues of Corrections Compendium, please contact Cece Hill, CEGA Services Inc., P.O. Box 81826, Lincoln, NE 68501; (402) 420-0602.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Date:||Nov 1, 2002|
|Previous Article:||Trends in correctional leadership.|
|Next Article:||Corrections calendar.|