Summer 2018
Council Members

Hon. Warren Wolfson (Ret.), Vice-Chair
First District Appellate Court
Sen. Kwame Raoul, Vice-Chair
Illinois State Senate

Stephen Baker
Office of the Cook County Public Defender
Sen. Jason Barickman
Illinois State Senate

Kathryn Bocanegra
Institute for Nonviolence Chicago
Rep. Marcus Evans
Illinois House of Representatives
Craig Findley
Illinois Prisoner Review Board

Anne Fitzgerald
Office of the Cook County Sheriff
Michael J. Glick
Office of the Attorney General
Nicholas Kondelis
Illinois State Police

John Maki
Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority
Rep. Margo McDermed
Illinois House of Representatives

Marcia M. Meis
Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts

Hon. Stuart E. Palmer (Ret.)
First District Appellate Court

Michael Pelletier
Office of the State Appellate Defender

Alan Spellberg
Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office

Dr. Don Stemen
Loyola University Associate Professor
Gladyse Taylor
Illinois Department of Corrections

Julian Thompson
University of Chicago Doctoral Candidate

Stewart Umholtz
Tazewell County State’s Attorney

Chief Kristen Ziman
City of Aurora Police Department

Key Findings

Convictions in 2016
71,551 total convictions

• In 2016, 38,477 people were convicted of
felonies and 33,074 were convicted of
misdemeanors in Illinois.

• Only 11% of the 71,551 total convictions
were of individuals with no prior arrests.
Roughly 96% of the people admitted to
prison eventually return to the
community.

Misdemeanors
46%

• Forty-three percent of those released
from prison each year recidivate within
three years of release and 17% will
recidivate within one year of release.
• Thirty-five percent of those sentenced to
probation for felony offenses each year
recidivate within three years of sentencing,
and 17% will recidivate within one year.
• Thirty-seven percent of those sentenced
to probation for misdemeanor offenses
each year recidivate within three years of
sentencing, and 19% will recidivate within
one year.

• The average cost associated with
one recidivism event is $151,662.
Given current recidivism trends,
over the next 5 years recidivism will
cost Illinois over $13 billion.

Felonies
54%

Reconviction Recidivism Rates
50%
Recidivism Rate

Hon. Gino DiVito, Chair
Tabet DiVito & Rothstein, Chicago

40%
30%
20%
Adult Probation (misdemeanors)
Adult Probation (felonies)
Adult Prison (felonies)
Combined Recidivism

10%
0%
0

1

Year

2

3

This brief updates the Sentencing Policy Advisory Council’s (SPAC’s) 2015 High Cost of Recidivism
report.1 Similar to regular updating of financial reports on economic activity or investments, this
criminal justice update incorporates new trends and improved methodology to provide a more
accurate and current picture of the high costs of recidivism in Illinois. The brief below describes the
key findings and costs, how those costs accumulate over time, and how evidence-based policies and
practices can help reduce recidivism such that the benefits outweigh the costs.

The Pew-MacArthur Results First Initiative, a project of the Pew Charitable Trusts and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, works with
Illinois and other jurisdictions to implement an innovative cost-benefit analysis approach to aid State policy decision making. In addition to SPAC’s use of the
Illinois Results First cost-benefit model, the Illinois Budgeting for Results Commission is using the model to assess programs across State policy arenas.

1

e High Cost of Recidivism

1

Total Cost of a Recidivism Event: $151,662

Taxpaper Costs

Victimization Costs

$50,835

• Almost half, or $75,408, of the cost of recidivism is
attributed to the tangible and intangible costs borne
by victims.
• Taxpayers of Illinois—pay one third, or $50,835, of
the cost of recidivism. These costs include the
resources required for law enforcement, court
costs, and the costs of imposing sentences of
community supervision or incarceration in county
jails or state prisons.
• The costs of recidivism are higher than previously
estimated in 2015, largely because criminal justice
costs have increased and also due to
methodological improvements that capture more
accurately the true costs of crime.

$75,408

Indirect Costs

$25,420

conducts cost-benefit analysis to calculate the
benefits of evidence-based programs within State
prisons.2

• Prior SPAC reports show benefits of alternatives to
incarceration. This report discusses the key
ingredients for achieving recidivism-reducing
benefits:
1. Implementation is with fidelity;
2. Quality assurance is ongoing;
3. Data are collected and analyzed; and
4. Funding is prioritized to maximize benefits.3

• Recidivism rates, which are driven by arrests, are
lower than previously estimated in 2015.

• Cost-benefit analysis can be used to evaluate the
effectiveness and value of different evidence-based
programs that have been shown to reduce
recidivism. The results may be prioritized so that
decision makers can make apples-to-apples
comparisons between program options.
• The Illinois Budgeting for Results Commission

Illinois Budgeting for Results Commission. (2017). 7th Annual Commission Report. Available at:
https://www2.illinois.gov/sites/budget/Documents/Budgeting%20for%20Results/2017%20BFR%20Annual%20Commission%20Report.pdf. See page 6. For
more information about BFR, see https://www2.illinois.gov/sites/budget/pages/results.aspx.
3
SPAC. (2015). Illinois Results First: Cost-Benefit Tool for Illinois Criminal Justice Policymakers. Available at:
http://www.icjia.state.il.us/spac/pdf/Illinois_Results_First_Consumer_Reports_072016.pdf.
2

2

e High Cost of Recidivism

Illinois Results First: The High Cost
of Recidivism
COST OF ONE RECIDIVISM EVENT:
$151,662

COST OF RECIDIVISM OVER THE NEXT
FIVE YEARS: $13 BILLION

Recidivism over the next five years is projected to
cost Illinois residents almost $13 billion if current
trends continue. This estimate is based on the
current recidivism patterns of the 59,000
individuals who are expected to be released from
prison or sentenced to probation each year over
this period. Every time an offender reoffends and
is convicted for a new crime, the criminal justice
system spends money for arresting and processing;
for the prosecution, defense, and trial of cases; and
for incarceration and supervision. Social costs, such
as lost property, medical bills, wage loss, and the
pain and suffering experienced by crime victims,
account for more than $75,000 of this cost. Over
five years, each individual who commits new
crimes will produce victimization, system, and
economic costs that average $151,662 per
recidivism conviction. Assuming recidivism rates
remain at current levels, five years’ worth of
recidivism causes $13 billion in total costs.4

The Sentencing Policy Advisory Council (SPAC) is
a statutorily created, independent commission of
criminal justice stakeholders that reports to all three
branches of government. SPAC does not make
recommendations, oppose, or support specific
policy proposals. SPAC’s mission is to provide
system-wide fiscal impact analysis and provide
research and analysis to support implementation of
evidence-based practices. Cost-benefit analysis is
one tool SPAC is using to weigh alternatives and
evaluate outcomes as measured by lower
recidivism rates; it is not a judgment of the system
or of individual stakeholders—nor does this report
recommend specific remedies.

This report updates the previous SPAC cost-benefit analysis
to determine the true costs of recidivism in Illinois. The
Budgeting for Results Commission (BFR) is a statutorily
created commission of legislators and appointees that advises
the Governor in prioritizing outcomes and setting fiscal policy
to achieve results.5 BFR, with staff and assistance of the
Governor’s Office of Management and Budget, now uses
the Illinois Results First cost-benefit analysis model as part of
the statewide budgetary planning.

Recidivism in Illinois

Criminal history records show that those who recidivate
commit a substantial portion of crime in Illinois. Only 11% of
the 71,551 total convictions in 2016 were of individuals with
no prior arrests. SPAC’s profiles of average offenders (updated
in 2018) demonstrate that many people who are sentenced
to prison have long histories of prior arrests and several
convictions on their records.6

For purposes of this report and the Illinois Results First costbenefit model, recidivism is defined as a conviction following
either a sentence to probation or release from prison. SPAC
tracked recidivism rates, as well as the type and frequency of
crime by each individual, covering a nine year period. Table A
below is the recidivism rates for misdemeanor and felony
probation and prison for a 2007 cohort.

Currently, a large number of offenders are caught in the
repetitive cycle of recidivism. Each new conviction, each
recidivating event, represents additional victimizations and costs
to the system which accumulate over time. Evidence-based
interventions can effectively interrupt this cycle and help put
offenders on the path to productive citizenship.

In addition to new convictions, technical violations of
mandatory supervised release (MSR) also contribute to the high
cost of recidivism. Technical violations add costs to system
actors, requiring law enforcement, jails, and prisons to arrest
and detain those who violate the terms of their community
supervision. For the 2007 cohort, approximately 25% of those
individuals on MSR committed violations and returned to
prison; 10% of those sentenced to probation were violated
and sent to prison. These percentages are consistent with past

Recidivism events that occur in future years—i.e., years two through five—are discounted at the end of each year using a conservative 5% social discount
rate. The social discount rate reflects that a dollar five years from now is worth less than a dollar today since the future is uncertain. At a 5% discount rate,
$1.00 received in five years is worth $0.78 today.
5
15 ILCS 20/50-25 (2018).
6
Offender profiles are available at http://ilspac.illinois.gov under the Publications tab.
4

e High Cost of Recidivism

3

Table A. Illinois Recidivism Rates
Year from Release
Adult Probation
(misdemeanors)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

19.0%

30.0%

36.7%

41.0%

44.1%

46.2%

48.2%

49.7%

50.9%

Adult Probation (felonies)

16.8%

27.9%

35.1%

39.9%

43.2%

45.8%

47.7%

49.4%

50.6%

Adult Prison (felonies)

17.4%

33.0%

43.2%

49.5%

53.7%

56.6%

58.7%

60.5%

62.0%

Combined Recidivism
(felonies and misdemeanors)

17.5%

30.6%

39.1%

44.5%

48.1%

50.8%

52.8%

54.5%

55.9%

SPAC analysis of technical violations.7

The average cost of recidivism events is $151,662 per new
conviction, which reflects the likelihood of technical violations,
system resources consumed, and victimizations associated with
each conviction. The calculation also includes the expected
victimizations that occur but are not reported and those that
are reported but do not result in a final conviction in order to
give a more accurate illustration of the true costs of crime.

Calculating the True Cost of Crime

Cost-benefit analysis has been used in the private sector for
decades to compare spending, benefits, and expected
outcomes. This method of analysis is powerful for
government because it provides an apples-to-apples
comparison between programs, helping state and local
governments prioritize spending on programs that produce
measurable, positive outcomes. Cost-benefit analysis can be
used to calculate the benefits of diversion programs,
alternatives to incarceration, and the incarceration of those
for whom prison is the appropriate sentence.

To calculate the true cost of crime in Illinois, SPAC, in
collaboration with the Budgeting for Results Commission,
has implemented the Pew-MacArthur Results First Initiative’s
cost-benefit analysis approach. The approach is adapted to
include Illinois-specific costs, unique population and crime
characteristics, and recidivism patterns. In addition to the
system costs paid by state and local governments, the Results
First model incorporates victimization costs established by
national research, including jury awards for pain and suffering,
to value the average cost of physical, property, and intangible
effects of crime.

The model uses these inputs to calculate the costs of
crime for victims, government programs and services,
and the broader economy. This calculation also accounts
for the costs of crimes that are not reported or that do
not end in conviction. By combining Illinois-specific inputs
and the best national research, the model produces
estimates of the net long-term social benefits of specific
tax-dollar spending, allowing policymakers to look
beyond one year’s revenues and expenditures when
making funding decisions.

Recidivism is Expensive

To determine an average cost of one recidivism event,
the Illinois Results First cost-benefit model calculated
costs ten-thousand times, each time varying the inputs
within a range of possible values. For example, the
model varies victimization costs above and below the
national averages. Calculating the costs so many times
with different inputs allows the model to develop realistic
best- and worst-case scenarios.8 The modeling
produced an average cost as low as $117,000 and as
high as $186,000.

Because of the wide range of victimization and system
costs, the average cost of a recidivism event should be
generally applied. A policy affecting only felony drug
offenses, for example, may not consistently avoid the
average victim costs. A policy reducing a wide range of
offenders’ recidivism patterns, however, should avoid
these costs. Table B below shows the different average
costs, including the ranges, for the adult criminal justice
population.

See SPAC. (2013). Drivers of the Sentenced Population: MSR Violators. Available at:
http://www.icjia.state.il.us/spac/pdf/SPAC%20Report%20MSR%20violator%209-13.pdf; and SPAC. (2013). Drivers of the Sentenced Population: Probation
Analysis. Available at: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/spac/pdf/SPAC%20Report%20probation%20analysis%209-13.pdf.
8
This is a common mathematical method known as Monte Carlo simulation. More information on methodology can be found in the Supplement to this
report.
7

4

e High Cost of Recidivism

Table B. Cohort-Specific Recidivism Costs

Minimum Average Maximum

Adult Probation
(misdemeanors and felonies)

$93,000 $122,946 $152,000

Adult Prison (felonies)

$139,000 $179,731 $222,000

Combined Recidivism
(felonies and misdemeanors)

$117,000 $151,662 $186,000

Fifty percent of the $151,662 cost is borne by victims,
estimated as $75,408 in tangible (e.g., stolen or
damaged property, medical care, lost wages) and
intangible (e.g., pain and suffering) costs. Taxpayer
costs—through state and local government agents—are
$50,835 for the average arrest, adjudication, conviction,
and punishment for a conviction. Finally, the indirect
losses from lower total economic activity are $25,420.9

The victimization costs reflect the crime patterns
experienced in Illinois. SPAC calculated the baseline

recidivism rates, shown above, for a cohort of offenders in
Illinois who were either released from prison or sentenced
to probation in 2007. This year was used in order to have
nine years of continuous criminal history data for each
individual. The model utilizes these specific Illinois trends in
making its estimate. For further information on the
methodology and cost-benefit analysis’ inputs, please refer
to the SPAC and Budgeting for Results Technical Supplement,
available online.

Applied to these crime patterns are the average victimization
costs from two seminal victimization studies.10 These costs,
as shown in Table C on the following page, include tangible
costs, which are the physical harms such as medical
expenses, cash or property theft or damage, and lost
earnings due to injury or related consequences. Intangible
costs are the pain and suffering resulting from being a crime
victim. Including these costs allows for a reasonable
comparison between the public costs and benefits with the
societal effects of changing crime in the community.

Total Cost of a Recidivism Event: $151,662

Taxpaper Costs

$50,835

Victimization Costs

$75,408

Indirect Costs

$25,420

In economic terms, these costs are the “deadweight costs of taxation” or “excess burden of taxation,” which are estimates of the reduced economic activity
caused by taxes that are not offset by other benefits. Economists have identified that taxes reduce activity through fewer consumer purchases and business
sales. SPAC includes these estimates of economic inefficiency to account for the true impact of government spending on criminal justice in Illinois.
10
McCollister, K.E., French, M.T., and Fang, H. (2010). The Cost of Crime to Society: New Crime-Specific Estimates for Policy and Program Evaluation. Drug
and Alcohol Dependence, 108, 98-109. Cohen, M.A. and Piquero, A.R. (2009). New Evidence on the Monetary Value of Saving a High-Risk Youth. Journal
of Quantitative Criminology, 25(1), 25-49. Note: these numbers are based on national calculations and are not specific to Illinois. Illinois does not have a cap
on pain and suffering awards; therefore average victimization costs may be higher. SPAC is confident that these numbers are a reliable proxy for Illinois costs
and will continue to refine the victim costs, as well as other inputs, to improve the cost estimates of convictions and of criminal justice programs in Illinois.
9

e High Cost of Recidivism

5

Table C. Tangible and Intangible Victim Costs

Tangible Victim
Costs

Intangible Victim Costs
Total
Victimization Costs

Aggravated
Assault or
Battery

Felony
Property

$12,023

$2,027

$897

$18,567

$6,847

$30,590

Murder

Felony Sex
Crimes

Robbery

$567,639

$4,745

$5,950

$6,497,488

$169,294

$7,065,127

$174,039

What is the Cost of Recidivism over Five Years?

Felony
Drug and
Other

Misdemeanors

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$2,027

$0

$0

Just one year of recidivism in Illinois costs the State $1.5 billion per cohort of offenders released from prison and sentenced
to felony and misdemeanor probation. This calculation applies the $151,662 per conviction to the one-year recidivism
rate (17.5%) of the 59,000 individuals either sentenced to probation or released from prison. Over five years, the costs
accumulate to $13 billion as each year more individuals are placed on probation or released from prison and recidivism
occurs. This is the high cost of recidivism.11
Table D. Five Years Recidivism Costs
First Year

Event
Year
1
2

3
4
5

Total

Second Year

Third Year

Fourth Year

Fifth Year

Total

Number of Recidivism
Recidivism
Recidivism
Recidivism
Recidivism
Recidivism
Recidivism
Recidivism
Recidivism
Recidivism
Recidivism
Recidivism
Costs
Costs
Costs
Costs
Costs
Costs
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events (in millions)
(millions)
(millions)
(millions)
(millions)
(millions)

10,400

$1,502

-

-

7,785

$1,071

10,400

$1,363

3,209

$400

5,052

$544

5,052
2,139

28,586

$662
$254

$3,890

7,785
3,209

26,446

-

-

-

-

7,785

$881

$925

10,400 $1,298

$314

5,052

$3,146

$519

-

-

-

-

-

-

7,785

$839

10,400 $1,236

-

-

-

-

10,400

23,237 $2,697 18,186 $2,075 10,400

-

10,400 $1,502

-

30,230 $2,885

-

-

$1,177

18,186 $2,434
38,283 $3,062
43,401 $3,103

$1,177 140,499 $12,985

Each year, SPAC estimates about 59,000 individuals are sentenced to probation or released from prison. Using expected
recidivism rates from past trends, these individuals will face about 10,400 convictions within the first year and over
28,000 convictions over five years. The total recidivism costs are found by multiplying the number of recidivism events
with the Illinois Results First average cost of a recidivism event of $151,662. The future recidivism costs are discounted
using a 5% social discount rate to reflect the reduced value of future dollars.12
The cost of a conviction permits SPAC to model changes in recidivism rates over time. This approach allows the Results
First model to compare the costs and benefits of different criminal justice policies and programs in Illinois.

Sentencing Policy Advisory Council. (2015). Illinois Results First: The High Cost of Recidivism. Available at:
http://www.icjia.state.il.us/spac/pdf/Illinois_Results_First_1015.pdf. Note that the updated results are higher per recidivism event than reported in 2015
($118,746 per event). The new results account for more recent crime and cost data, as well as some methodological improvements of the model overall.
12
If a 2% discount rate were used, the total recidivism costs for five years would be $13.7 billion; if the discount rate were 10%, the total costs would be
$12 billion.
11

6

e High Cost of Recidivism

Reduce recidivism five percentage points

To demonstrate the possible benefits of recidivism reductions, SPAC estimated the effects of reducing recidivism by one,
five, and ten percentage points. The five percentage point reduction over five years appears as in Table E:13
Table E. Five Percentage Point Reduction in Recidivism
Year from Release
Combined Recidivism
5 percentage point
reduction

1

17.5%
12.5%

2

30.6%
25.6%

3

39.1%
34.1%

4

44.5%
39.5%

5

48.1%
43.1%

Reducing the combined recidivism rate one percentage point results in 594 fewer convictions, avoiding a total of $90.1
million in costs over nine years. Those avoided costs include government expenditures, reduced victimization costs,
and improved economic efficiencies. As shown on the right side of the Table F below, a one percent reduction in
recidivism creates $44.8 million in reduced victimization costs.
Table F. Recidivism Rate Reductions
Total
Benefits

1%
reduction

5%
reduction
10%
reduction

Total Benefits by Beneficiary
(millions)

Reduce
Dollar Benefits Government
Convictions
(millions)
Expenditures

Victims

Indirect Economic
Benefits

594

$90.1

$30.2

$44.8

$15.1

2,972

$450.7

$151.1

$224.1

$75.5

5,943

$901.3

$301.1

$448.1

$151.1

Because the percentage change is consistent each year, the model calculates the savings in the first year.14 In this case,
there would be 2,972 fewer convictions and $451 million in costs avoided. This percentage point reduction method
has been used by other states that are implementing the Results First model and is the method SPAC uses in the High
Cost of Recidivism report.

How to Reduce Recidivism

Criminal justice and social science research has established that recidivism can be reduced and criminal conduct changed
through effective, tried-and-true interventions. Effective, evidence-based policies and programs are those that have been
shown to improve outcomes in rigorous evaluations across jurisdictions and in multiple studies. The Illinois Results First
cost-benefit model includes a database of programs that address adult criminal justice, as well as other policy areas.
Effective policies and programs have been shown to successfully reduce recidivism over time in a variety of states.
Note: this report’s approach is different than a percent reduction of the recidivism rate (a percent-of-a-percent approach). In this report, the
demonstration simply subtracts five percentage points rather than reducing the recidivism rate (i.e., under an alternative approach, 5% of 17.5% would be a
0.88% reduction to a rate of 16.6% in the first year).
14
The model’s savings are technically the net present value of the costs accrued over the lifetimes of the affected persons. Some of costs such as prison can
occur over several years. The future costs are discounted by a discount rate of between 2% and 5%.
13

e High Cost of Recidivism

7

The core concepts of adult criminal justice programs,
which are necessary to achieve the desired reduction in
crime, are well established. Years of research on
evidence-based practices indicates that Illinois could
replicate successful program outcomes by:
1. Implementing proven programs with fidelity to the
core concepts. If the core concepts of a program
are not followed, the result will not be consistent
with past outcomes.
2. Ensuring consistent quality assurance of the
programs to protect fidelity to the core concepts.
In programs that work, quality assurance is
ongoing and consistent over time.
3. Collecting and analyzing data to conduct
independent program evaluations. This critical
component of evidence-based practices verifies
the expected outcomes and ensures those
outcomes are realized. Program evaluations are
also the source for future evidence-based
programs and can build a base of knowledge
within Illinois. Unfortunately, program evaluations
have not been done on a vast majority of
programs that Illinois currently funds.

4. Prioritizing funding, with proper analysis of
outcomes and resource use, based on success.
Success can be defined as any program producing
positive social benefits and returns on the
investment of taxpayer dollars. Programs that do
not produce benefits and a reasonable return on
investment should not be funded with tax dollars.

Currently, BFR uses Illinois Results First to focus their
efforts to inventory criminal justice programs, determine
if the programs are evidence based, and analyze the
expected returns. Performance monitoring by BFR and
the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget permit
quality assurance and analysis on whether the programs
are expected to achieve the recidivism-reducing benefits.

High Cost of Recidivism

Cost-benefit analysis is one tool policymakers can use to
meet the challenge of reducing recidivism rates at
sustainable costs. If Illinois implemented proven evidencebased programs with fidelity, the State could achieve
8

e High Cost of Recidivism

lower rates of recidivism, which would result in fewer
convictions, fewer crimes, and less victimization.
Continuous evaluation and monitoring will be necessary
to ensure that these programs are properly implemented
and to ensure that actual savings match the expected
returns. Data collected from the programs can be used by
the cost-benefit model to analyze outcomes and quantify
returns on investment.
If recidivism reduction strategies are successful, the savings
generated become available for other uses—including
more investment in programs that work within the criminal
justice system, social service interventions that reduce the
risk of future criminal behavior, and reentry programs for
offenders returning to the community—that reduce the
number of victimizations going forward. If recidivism is not
addressed using research and cost-benefit analysis, the
people of Illinois will continue to pay the high cost of
maintaining the status quo.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

SPAC would like to acknowledge the invaluable
contributions to implementing Illinois Results First,
particularly the Budgeting for Results Commission, within
the Illinois Governor’s Office of Management and Budget.
The BFR Commission is using results of Illinois Results First
and providing valuable insights into the cost components
of this model.
SPAC would also like to thank:

Research & Analysis staff of the Illinois Criminal Justice
Information Authority
Research and Planning Unit of the Illinois Department
of Corrections
The Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts
The Illinois State Police

The Illinois Sheriff’s Association

The Illinois State’s Attorney Appellate Prosecutor
Dr. Dave Olson, Loyola University-Chicago

The Pew-MacArthur Results First Initiative technical
assistance team

Printed by the Authority of the State of Illinois
IOCI 18-0564 300 copies 5/18