By Cheryl Yates

In October 2019, the Iowa Department of Human Rights Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning (CJJP) was awarded Statistical Analysis Center (SAC) funding through the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), to conduct a longitudinal evaluation of sex offenders serving special sentences in Iowa. The purpose was to evaluate the effectiveness of the special sentence policy and the extent to which it reduced recidivism long-term. The special sentence was enacted in 2005 to mandate extended monitoring of sex offenders in the community for a duration of 10 years or life, depending on the crime. An initial study was conducted by CJJP in 2014 for the former Sex Offender Research Council (SORC). The 2014 study compared recidivism rates of Iowa sex-offenders who were supervised on special sentence to a cohort of sex-offenders who were supervised before the special sentence was enacted. The results showed lower rates of new convictions for sex offenses among those on the special sentence within a three-year tracking period, but higher prison return rates for technical violations presumably a result of the increased monitoring in the community.1 The current study will use a longer, nine-year recidivism tracking period to track the same cohorts studied in 2014. The purpose is to examine whether the special sentence cohort continues to have lower sex offense recidivism rates and higher prison returns over a nine-year tracking. The evaluation questions investigated in this report include the following:  Is the low likelihood of sexual reoffending sustained longer-term?  Does special sentence monitoring continue to result in more technical violations and time incarcerated for sex offenders on the special sentence compared to the pre-special sentence cohort?  What are the estimated costs and what resources might be needed in the future to sustain this intensive supervision?  What is the expected forecasted growth of offenders serving a special sentence in the community and those who are in the prison population? As outlined in the SAC grant proposal, multiple indicators of recidivism will be examined, including any conviction, felony conviction only, sex conviction, felony sex conviction, and revocation (prison return due to technical violation or new conviction). The study will also examine the demographics of sex offenders, their convicting offense, risk levels, and treatment participation; the number of offenders on the special sentence and forecasted; and costs of the special sentence and alternatives.

Iowa Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning (CJJP) , 2021. 52p.

By Marco Castillo, Sera Linardi, Ragan Petrie:

Many previously incarcerated individuals are rearrested following release from prison. We investigate whether encouragement to use reentry support services reduces rearrest. Field experiment participants are offered a monetary incentive to complete different dosages of visits, either three or five, to a support service provider. The incentive groups increased visits, and one extra visit reduces rearrests three years after study enrollment by six percentage points. The results are driven by Black participants who are more likely to take up treatment and benefit the most from visits. The study speaks to the importance of considering first-stage heterogeneity and heterogeneous treatment effects.

IZA DP No. 17522

Bonn: IZA – Institute of Labor Economics, 2024. 46p.

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.