Highlighting the many challenges in assessing recidivism data

Stateline has this effective (and evergreen) article on the difficulties surrounding recedivism data.  The full healine of this piece highlights its themes: “How many inmates return to prison? Inconsistent reporting makes it hard to tell. States define recidivism differently, which can result in misleading interpretations of the statistics.” Here are excerpts:

Several states this year have reported lower rates of recidivism, showing that fewer convicted criminals are being re-arrested after leaving prison.  But those statistics hardly tell the full story.

Recidivism rates across the country can vary greatly because of how they’re defined, how the data is collected and how it’s presented to the public.  So it can be difficult to say that, for example, one state is doing better than another in rehabilitating formerly incarcerated residents….

Most states measure recidivism by tracking former inmates who were held in state prisons or facilities and return to the state prison system within three years.  Experts say the absence of a national standard makes it challenging to compare jurisdictions and programs….

In recidivism studies, the act of reoffending may be defined differently.  It can, for example, include violating parole, being arrested, being convicted of a crime or returning to prison.  Some studies consider all these outcomes as recidivism, while others count only one or two. 

Some states only consider felonies as recidivism, excluding less serious misdemeanors that may result in local jail time rather than a state prison sentence.  And states vary in categorizing crimes as felonies or misdemeanors, adding even more complexity….  States also are inconsistent in the time periods covered by recidivism studies.  Most include new offenses within three to five years; others examine a much shorter time frame, such as six months to a year….

Official data also can miss counting former prisoners who break the law but go undetected.  This is why some criminologists argue that recidivism studies should include self-reports of criminal behavior and differentiate among various types of recidivism, such as violent crimes, property crimes and technical violations….

Some advocates say that using alternative factors such as employment or housing provides much better indicators of success after being released from prison. “Recidivism by itself is not a true measure of the success of reentry programming or of incarceration rates,” said Ann Fisher, the executive director of Virginia CARES, a nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting formerly incarcerated people in Virginia. “It’s just not a true picture.”

A 2022 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine suggests pairing recidivism rates with indicators that capture progress away from crime, such as reductions in the seriousness of criminal activity or an increased duration between release and a criminal act, known as “desistance.”  The report also recommends developing new measures of post-release success that consider factors such as personal well-being, education, employment, housing, family and social supports, health, civic and community engagement and legal involvement.