By John Eric Humphries, Aurelie Ouss, Kamelia Stavreva, Megan T. Stevenson & Winnie van Dijk

Noncarceral conviction is a common outcome of criminal court cases: for every individual incarcerated, there are approximately three who are recently convicted but not sentenced to prison or jail. We develop an empirical framework for studying the consequences of noncarceral conviction by extending the binary-treatment judge IV framework to settings with multiple treatments. We outline assumptions under which widely-used 2SLS regressions recover margin-specific treatment effects, relate these assumptions to models of judge decision-making, and derive an expression that provides intuition about the direction and magnitude of asymptotic bias when they are not met. Under the identifying assumptions, we find that noncarceral conviction (relative to dismissal) leads to a large and long-lasting increase in recidivism for felony defendants in Virginia. In contrast, incarceration relative to noncarceral conviction leads to a short-run reduction in recidivism, consistent with incapacitation. While the identifying assumptions include a strong restriction on judge decision-making, we argue that any bias resulting from its failure is unlikely to change our qualitative conclusions. Lastly, we introduce an alternative empirical strategy and find that it yields similar estimates. Collectively, these results suggest that noncarceral felony conviction is an important and potentially overlooked driver of recidivism.

 National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper no. 32894 Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2024. 134p.

By Evarn J. Ooi

Aim

We investigate the impact of the Practice Guide for Intervention (PGI) on re-offending among high-risk parolees in New South Wales (NSW).

 Method

Introduced in June 2016, PGI was a major component of the ‘Enhanced Community Supervision’ reform and led to a dramatic overhaul in the delivery of supervision services. Using a difference-in-differences (DiD) strategy, we compare re-offending behaviour between offenders released from prison on parole and those released unconditionally before and after the introduction of PGI. PGI is compulsory for offenders released on parole with a Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) score of medium or above, and consequently, the sample is limited to offenders with these LSI-R scores. Re-offending is measured as the probability of committing a new and proven offence within 12 months of release from prison. The pre-PGI period includes offenders released from prison between June and December 2014. There are two post-PGI periods. The first post-PGI period includes offenders released between June and December 2016, which coincides with the first six months after PGI was introduced in NSW. The second post-PGI period includes offenders released between June and December 2017, when the use of PGI across NSW was approaching its historical peak.

 Results

A comparison of the trends in the re-offending rate before the introduction of PGI confirms that prisoners released unconditionally form a natural comparison group for parolees. The DiD estimates reveal a 2 to 3 percentage point reduction in the likelihood of re-offending among parolees compared with those released unconditionally after the introduction of PGI. However, the estimates are not statistically significant.

Conclusion

The results suggest that the introduction of PGI did not have a statistically significant impact on re-offending rates of high-risk parolees.

(Crime and Justice Bulletin No. 228).  Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. 2020. 26p.

By David Macdonald

Truth in Sentencing laws eliminates discretion in prison release. This decreases the incentive for rehabilitative effort among prisoners. I use a regression discontinuity design to exploit a change in these incentives created by the introduction of TIS in Arizona. Before prison, I found that sentences were reduced by 20% for TIS offenders. Further, I find that rule infractions increased by 22% to 55% and education enrolment fell by 24%. After release, I found offenders were 4.8 p.p. more likely to re-offend. I further find that recidivism and infraction effects are largest among drug and violent offenders. Finally, I show that the reduction in sentences resulted in a broad equalization of time served at the cutoff, which indicates that the removal of early-release incentives by TIS was the main mechanism driving results.

Unpublished paper, 2024. 84p.

By Margaret Love & David Schlussel

Background: This report is the first-ever comprehensive national survey of the period of time a person, who is otherwise eligible to expunge or seal a misdemeanor or felony conviction record, must wait before obtaining this relief. Waiting periods are usually established by statute and can range from 0 to 20 years, a period that typically (though by no means invariably) commences after completion of the court-imposed sentence. Also typically, during a waiting period the person must be free from certain forms of involvement with the justice system: from a felony conviction, from any conviction, or from any arrest, again depending on state law. These and other conditions and circumstances may extend (or occasionally shorten) the length of a waiting period in specific cases.

Contents of the Report: Following this introduction, the report consists of two 50 state Tables, one showing the waiting periods applicable to clearing of misdemeanors, and the other showing the waiting periods applicable to clearing of felonies, with states that have no general record clearing listed at the bottom of each table. The Tables are followed by maps showing the geographical distribution of waiting periods for each type of conviction. The maps are followed by an appendix describing in greater detail the laws governing waiting periods in each of the jurisdictions studied.

Summary of 50-state research results:

• The waiting periods for misdemeanor convictions range from a high of 10 or 15 years in Maryland (depending on the nature of the offense) to 0 years in Mississippi (although only first-time offenses are eligible), with most states falling at the lower end of that range. Of the 44 states that authorize clearing of misdemeanor convictions, a near-majority have waiting periods of 3 years or less (19 states) and the vast majority have waiting periods of 5 years or less (35 states).

• The waiting periods for felony convictions range from as high as 10 or 20 years in North Carolina to as low as 0-2 years in California, with most states falling at the lower end of that range. Of the 35 states that authorize clearing of felony convictions, a near-majority have waiting periods of 7 years or less (17 states).

Comment on methodology: This report deals only with waiting periods, and only with those applicable to general record clearing of felony and misdemeanor convictions. Different waiting periods may apply to specialized record-clearing programs such as those that apply to victims of human trafficking, decriminalized offenses (e.g., marijuana), and so-called youthful offender programs. It also does not take account of other eligibility requirements that typically apply that could extend the waiting period, including completion of supervision and/or payment of court debt, or potential extensions related to prior, subsequent, and pending criminal matters. It does not consider provisions allowing the DA to consent to shorten waiting periods.

The Tables are based only on the length of the waiting period specified in statute. Insofar as practicable, the charts account for differences in when the waiting period commences (e.g., upon conviction, upon release from incarceration, upon completion of supervision, upon completion of sentence including payment of court debt). Further information about states in the far righthand column of the Tables may be found in the state-specific write-ups in the Appendix or in the state-specific profiles from CCRC’s Restoration of Rights Project.

Considerations for assessing the efficacy of waiting periods: In assessing how waiting periods affect the efficacy of a particular state’s record clearing system, it is important to consider whether some states with shorter waiting periods authorize clearance of a narrower set of convictions, and, conversely, whether some states with longer periods may authorize clearing of a broader set of convictions. In many if not most cases, other variables (including but not limited to those mentioned in the foregoing paragraph) will have to be brought into play to provide a fair assessment.

The changing concept (and length) of waiting periods: Many waiting periods, notably longer ones, reflect a concept of record clearing via expungement or sealing as “recognition of successful rehabilitation and reason to terminate legal disqualifications and disabilities.”1 In recent years, however, many states have shortened waiting periods in recognition of the constructive role that record clearance plays in facilitating reentry and rehabilitation, reasoning that individuals “need the most assistance immediately after release from prison or termination of sentence.”

Since 2016, thirteen (13) states have reduced their waiting periods, four (4) states more than once. The seven (7) states that have enacted a general conviction sealing authority for the first time since 2018 have generally (though not invariably) provided shorter waiting periods than states with more venerable systems.3 States that have reduced their waiting periods in recent years, or enacted new record-clearing laws for the first time, tend to be geographically and politically diverse. The Tables show that the states with the longest waiting periods in the country are on the East Coast, with all but one in the Mid-Atlantic region.

Waiting periods and public safety: Data on recidivism dating from the 1990s reinforced policy arguments that waiting periods should be long enough to reduce the risk of reoffending after record clearance. But new research on recidivism suggests that shorter waiting periods need not raise public safety concerns. Researchers at the RAND Corporation have raised questions about decades of received truth about the prevalence of reoffending after people leave prison, proposing that the majority of individuals with a conviction do not have a subsequent conviction, and that a person’s likelihood of being convicted again declines rapidly as more time passes. This new research would seem to cast doubt on the legitimacy of concerns that shortening waiting periods necessarily raises public safety concerns. Indeed, to the contrary, it suggests that it may be possible to reconcile the seemingly inconsistent policy goals of facilitating and recognizing rehabilitation through shorter waiting periods.

Arnold, MO: Collateral Consequences Resource Center (CCRC) , 2022 23p.

By JESSICA REICHERT, RYAN MARANVILLE, EVA OTT HILL

Persons reentering the community after prison face many obstacles that have been shown to reduce recidivism, such as securing employment. Like many states, Illinois operates work release centers allowing prisoners nearing the end of their sentence to work in the community and stay in the correctional facility when not working. Although the research is limited, these programs have been shown to be successful at increasing post-release employment, increasing hours worked, and reducing recidivism. We described characteristics of 1,580 participants in Illinois’ four Adult Transition Centers (ATCs) and examined differences in characteristics associated with rearrest and reincarceration. We found age, gender, and ATC facility were associated with rearrest and reincarceration. We found, as well, that recidivism risk, offense type, prior arrests, prior incarcerations, and length of stay were associated with rearrest. We recommend consistently measuring risk and tailoring services to the needs of the participant population.

Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authorisy 2023. 17p.

MAY CONTAIN MARKUP

By Sheldon Glueck And Eleanor T. Glueck

The book provides a comprehensive analysis of the after-conduct of discharged offenders, focusing on the implications for reforming criminal justice:

● Causal Relations: It emphasizes the importance of understanding the multiple causal factors, both biological and environmental, that influence criminal behavior.

● Predictive Techniques: The document discusses the feasibility of using predictive tables to aid in sentencing and parole decisions.

● Reform Proposals: It suggests reforms for criminal justice based on scientific insights, such as re-designing correctional equipment to address causes rather than symptoms.

● Scientific Insights: Follow-up studies are highlighted as a means to gain scientific insights into the effectiveness of sentencing, treatment, and parole practices.

These key insights aim to shift the focus from punitive measures to a more rehabilitative approach that considers the complex interplay of factors contributing to criminal behavior.

Cambridge University. London 1945. Kraus Reprint Corporation New York 1966. 129p.

By Anna Chalton, Dugan Dallimore and Paul McGorrery

Threat Offences in Victoria examines sentencing outcomes from 2015 to 2019 for five types of threat offences: threat to kill, threat to inflict serious injury, threat to destroy or damage property, threat to commit a sexual offence and threat to assault an emergency worker. It considers the offences co-sentenced alongside threat offences and the prior and subsequent offending rates for people sentenced for threat offending.

Melbourne: Sentencing Advisory Council (VIC), 2021. 76p.

By Vishal Kamat, Samuel Norris and Matthew Pecenco

The criminal justice system affects millions of Americans through criminal convictions and incarceration. In this paper, we introduce a new method for credibly estimating the effects of both conviction and incarceration using randomly assigned judges as instruments for treatment. Misdemeanor convictions, especially for defendants with a shorter criminal record, cause an increase in the number of new offenses committed over the following five years. Incarceration on more serious felony charges, in contrast, reduces recidivism during the period of incapacitation, but has no effect after release. Our method allows the researcher to isolate specific treatment effects of interest as well as estimate the effect of broader policies; we find that courts could reduce crime by dismissing marginal charges against defendants accused of misdemeanors, with larger reductions among first-time defendants and those facing more serious charges.

Written March 2024. SSRN.

By The Council of State Governments Justice Center

This report highlights the significant progress made in reducing recidivism across the country over the past 15 years. Since its passage in 2008, the Second Chance Act has invested in state and local efforts to improve outcomes for people leaving prison and jail, with a total of nearly 1,200 grantees from 48 states and 3 territories administering programs that have served more than 400,000 people.

For the past 15 years, federal, state, local, and Tribal governments, as well as community-based organizations across the country, have been focused on reducing recidivism like never before. This report answers three critical questions:

What progress has been made?

• State-level reincarceration rates are 23 percent lower since 2008.

• Fewer returns to custody mean that more people can rejoin their families and contribute in their communities. States are achieving these rates with changes in policy and by increasing opportunities and resources to support employment and connections to behavioral health care and housing.

How much could states save by reducing recidivism further?

• Despite the progress made, states will spend an estimated $8 billion on reincarceration costs for people who exited prison in 2022.

• Scaling effective policies and reentry models can reduce the economic and human costs of recidivism, while creating meaningful opportunities for returning people to contribute to the workforce and their families and communities.

Are states ready to expand their efforts?

• In the past year, leaders in Missouri, Alabama, North Carolina, and Nebraska have set bold goals for reducing recidivism and improving reentry outcomes further by 2030.

• The goals include increasing access to treatment, mental health services, and medical care; improving individuals’ economic independence by ensuring they are better prepared for work and have access to employment; and increasing access to stable housing.

New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2024.

By Sara Wakefield, Lars Højsgaard Andersen

Using unique Danish register data that allow for comparisons across both conviction and incarceration status, this article analyzes the association between pretrial detention and work, family attachment, and recidivism. We find that pretrial detention may impose unique social costs, apart from conviction or additional punishments. Most notably, men who are detained pretrial experience poorer labor market trajectories than men who are convicted of a crime (but not incarcerated). Importantly, this result holds even for men who are detained pretrial but who are not convicted of the crime. Consistent with prior research, we also find that pretrial detention is unrelated to later family formation but might disrupt pre-existing household arrangements. Finally, the associations between pretrial detention and work and family life are not counterbalanced by reductions in recidivism.

Sociological Science 7: 342-366. 2020.

By Ryan Cotter

This study, the seventh in the recidivism series, examines the relationship between length of incarceration and recidivism. In 2020, the Commission published its initial comprehensive study on length of incarceration and recidivism. In that study, which examined offenders released in 2005, the Commission found that federal offenders receiving sentences of more than 60 months were less likely to recidivate compared to a similar group of offenders receiving shorter sentences. This study replicates the prior analysis, however, it examines a more current cohort of federal offenders released in 2010. This study examines the relationship between length of incarceration and recidivism, specifically exploring three potential relationships that may exist: incarceration as having a deterrent effect, a criminogenic effect, or no effect on recidivism.

Washington, DC: United States Sentencing Commission, 2022. 56p.