Cutting Corrections Costs
Earned Time Policies for State Prisoners

Cutting Corrections Costs

Earned Time Policies for State Prisoners
By
Alison Lawrence

I

,/j\\

111111
NATIONAL CONFERENCE
oj STATE LEG ISLATUIUS
The Forum for Amaiea', Id',15

National Conference of State Legislatures
William T. Pound, Executive Director
7700 East First Place
Denver, Colorado 80230
(303) 364-7700
444 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 515
Washington, D.C. 20001
(202) 624-5400
www.ncsl.org

July 2009

Cover design: Bruce Holdeman, 601 Design

This report is prepared under a partnership project of NCSL’s Criminal Justice Program in Denver, Colorado and the Public Safety
Performance Project of the Pew Center on the States, based in Washington, D.C. The NCSL project is designed to help states tap the
best research and information available to put a fiscal lens to sentencing and corrections policy options and reforms.

Printed on recycled paper
2009 by the National Conference of State Legislatures. All rights reserved.
ISBN 978-1-58024-564-7
Item # 017007
$10

Cutting Corrections Costs: Earned Time Policies for State Prisoners

iii

Preface and Acknowledgments
In addition to the author, Alison Lawrence, policy specialist in NCSL’s Criminal Justice Program,
other NCSL staff who contributed to this report and the project are Donna Lyons, group director for
Criminal Justice, and Vicky McPheron, staff coordinator. The author also thanks Leann Stelzer, program principal, in NCSL’s Publication Department, for editing and coordinating art and production.
The author gratefully acknowledges Adam Gelb, Richard Jerome and Jake Horowitz of the Public
Safety Performance Project of the Pew Center on the States for their assistance in producing this report.
The author also thanks Jenifer Warren for conducting interviews and preparing the sidebars. A reporter for the Los Angeles Times for more than two decades, Ms. Warren is now a consultant to the Public
Safety Performance Project of the Pew Center on the States.

Contents
Preface and Acknowledgments.............. iii
Introduction........................................... 1
Types of Earned Time............................ 1
Quantities of Earned Time..................... 2
Public Safety and Cost Savings............... 3
Recent Expansion of Earned Time
Policies................................................. 3
Conclusion............................................. 4
Expanding Earned Time Pays Off
in Washington...................................... 5
Reducing Recidivism in Kansas.............. 6
Incentive Credits in Pennsylvania........... 7
References.............................................. 8
Appendix: Earned Time Policies
in State Prisons..................................... 9
About the Author................................. 15
About the Funder................................. 15

National Conference of State Legislatures

Cutting Corrections Costs: Earned Time Policies for State Prisoners

Introduction

1

through averted future crime and punishment
costs.

Under historic budget cuts, state legislatures are
looking for ways to trim corrections costs while
maintaining public safety. One option is to
stabilize or reduce expensive prison populations
by accelerating release of lower-risk inmates
who complete education, vocational training,
treatment and work programs or participate in
other productive activities.
At least 31 states provide these incentives—
called “earned time”—that reduce the costs
of incarceration and help offenders succeed
when they return to the community. Inmate
prison terms are reduced from the date on
which they might have been released had they
not completed the specified programs. Earned
time is distinguished from, and can be offered
in addition to, “good time” credits, which are
awarded to offenders who follow prison
rules.
Benefits of appropriately tailored
earned time policies can include cost
savings and reduced recidivism. Even
though some earned time laws offer
inmates a fairly small reduction in
prison terms, those few days can add
up to a significant cost savings across
hundreds or thousands of inmates. Although
any policy that involves shorter lengths of stay
for inmates raises concerns about public safety,
states with earned time provisions have seen
recidivism rates either remain unchanged or
actually drop. This decrease in repeat offending
can be attributed partially to the benefits of
prison-based programming. The reduced
recidivism results in a secondary savings

Types of Earned Time
State laws generally instruct corrections
departments to determine the specific programs
and activities that will count toward earned
time. Programs often include educational,
vocational and substance abuse or other
rehabilitation classes. In several states, inmates
can earn time by participating in work projects
and disaster or conservation efforts, or by
performing meritorious acts. The appendix
illustrates types of earned time by state.
Education and work offer the most common
opportunity for earned time. In at least 21
states, inmates earn time off their sentences
by participating in or completing educational
courses. In Nevada, for example, an inmate can
earn 10 days per month
for participation in an
education program;
and an additional
60, 90 or 120 days
for completing a
certificate, diploma or
degree, respectively.
At least 18 states provide earned time for work.
This includes facility work assignments, jobs
with prison industries or work crews. California,
Colorado and Louisiana laws reward inmates
who are trained to work in disaster relief or on
conservation projects. Sentence credits for these
programs are greater than for ordinary prison
work, education or training. In California, an
inmate earns two days’ credit for every one day
of such service.

National Conference of State Legislatures

Cutting Corrections Costs: Earned Time Policies for State Prisoners

2

Inmates can earn time for participating in,
as well as credit for completing, vocational
programming in at least 16 states. Rehabilitative
programs in at least 14 states provide opportunity
for earned time, including substance abuse and
mental health treatment.
Special projects are eligible for earned time
in Kentucky, Maryland and Mississippi. At
least 13 states award time for meritorious
service, such as preventing escape, helping in
emergency situations, and helping to maintain
the safety and security of the institution. In
North Dakota, meritorious credit is defined
as “exceptional quantity or quality of work far
beyond the normal expectations for the job
assignment, beneficial suggestions resulting
in substantial savings to the state, acts of
outstanding heroism, or acts which protect
the lives of employees or other inmates or the
property of the institution.”

Quantities of Earned Time
Lawmakers define how much time offenders
can earn and which offenders are eligible.
Credits are given as one-time rewards or on a
recurring basis, such as monthly. The typical
range for a one-time credit is between 30
days and 120 days. In Arkansas, for example,
inmates are eligible for one-time credits of 90
days for completion of educational, vocational
and substance abuse programs. California,
Iowa and New Mexico, however, allow a onetime award of up to 365 days for meritorious
service.
For time rewarded regularly, an inmate is
generally credited less than one day for each
day of participation in a program. In South

Carolina, inmates are eligible for up to one
day off their sentence for every two days of
participation in an educational, technical or
vocational training program. Seven states—
California, Colorado, Georgia, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Texas and Vermont—have day-forday credit for participation in certain programs.
California and Louisiana also have policies that
exceed the day-for-day award. The appendix
shows earned time amounts by activity.
Earned time opportunities usually are made
available to lower-risk offenders who will be
back in the community sooner than inmates
who have committed more serious crimes.
States generally determine which inmates
are eligible based on conviction offense and
behavior in prison. In South Carolina, inmates
serving a “no parole offense”—including
those convicted of serious violent, sexual
and drug crimes—are eligible for about nine
fewer days per month than inmates who are
parole-eligible. Inmates serving a life sentence
or a mandatory minimum of at least 30 years
are not eligible for earned time. In Indiana’s
four-tiered system, only inmates in the least
restrictive security classification are eligible for
educational, vocational or rehabilitation earned
time credits.
A state’s sentencing structure and policies
affect and intersect with the amount of earned
time available to inmates. Because the time
offenders who are serving mandatory minimum
sentences cannot be reduced below the statutory
minimum, they may not be eligible for some
types of earned time. In Tennessee, for example,
inmates who are required to serve 85 percent of
their sentence can earn time for participation in
work, education or vocational training but are

National Conference of State Legislatures

Cutting Corrections Costs: Earned Time Policies for State Prisoners

not eligible for a 60-day credit for completing
vocational or educational courses.
Inmates who are serving sentences with
indeterminate minimums and maximums can
have earned time taken off the minimum term,
the maximum term or both. In Massachusetts,
inmates who participate in rehabilitative
programs reduce their length of stay with earned
time deductions from both the minimum and
maximum terms. In Oklahoma, earned time is
deducted only from the maximum term of the
sentence; offenders still must serve the entire
minimum term ordered by the court. Earned
time in Iowa is reduced from the mandatory
minimum sentence an inmate is serving.
Most states allow earned time to be lost and
be gained back. State laws generally create or
instruct the corrections department to create
policies and procedures for forfeiture and
restoration. Depending on the state, offenders
can lose earned time for escapes or attempted
escapes, frivolous lawsuits, and other rule
violations.

Public Safety
and Cost Savings
Studies of earned time have examined the
effect on crime rates, recidivism and costs. In
New York, for example, the Department of
Correctional Services reviewed the state’s merit
time program from 1997 through 2006. During
that time, 24,000 inmates received six-month
reductions in their minimum term, resulting
in a savings of $369 million. Another $15
million in savings during a three-year period
can be attributed to the need for less capital
construction. The recidivism rate for the early-

3

release group was lower (31 percent) than that
for inmates serving the full term (39 percent)
after three years.
In 2003, the Washington Legislature increased
the amount of good time from 33 percent of
the total sentence to 50 percent of the total
sentence for certain nonviolent drug and
property offenders. The Washington State
Institute of Public Policy analyzed the public
safety and cost benefits of the increase in good
time. Considering both taxpayer and victim
costs and benefits, the study found an overall net
benefit of $7,179 per offender. (See “Expanding
Earned Time Pays Off in Washington” on page
5.)
Finally, the National Council on Crime and
Delinquency recently published a literature
review of studies on state “accelerated release”
policies over a 23-year period. Of the 13 research
reports reviewed, none found a statistically
significant increase in rates of recidivism for
those offenders who reduced their length of
incarceration. A few studies instead found a
decrease in recidivism rates. An evaluation of
Wisconsin’s earned time policy, for example,
found that 17 percent of inmates released early
returned to prison after the first year, compared
to 28 percent of those freed on their mandatory
release date.

Recent Expansion of
Earned Time Policies
Several states have recently adopted or expanded
earned time policies as part of managing prison
populations and corrections budgets. Nevada
increased the amount of time an inmate who
completes educational, vocational or substance

National Conference of State Legislatures

4

Cutting Corrections Costs: Earned Time Policies for State Prisoners

abuse classes could earn. This was estimated to
free 51 prison beds in fiscal year 2008. Kansas
created a similar policy that awards credit
to certain low-risk offenders who complete
rehabilitative programs. It is forecasted to save
the state $3.6 million annually. (See “Reducing
Recidivism in Kansas” on page 6.)
A Pennsylvania law passed in the fall of 2008
created a program that allows earned time
to begin at sentencing. The “recidivism risk
reduction incentive program” permits judges to
select eligible defendants for the program and
set an incentive minimum sentence in addition
to the minimum and maximum sentences.
The inmate participates in assessments and
rehabilitative programs, maintains good
conduct and develops a reentry plan in order
to be paroled at the incentive minimum date.
(See “Incentive Credits in Pennsylvania” on
page 7.)
During 2009 legislative sessions, at least two
states have expanded earned time policies.
Colorado increased the number of good
time days an inmate can earn per month and
added an earned time provision that allows
the Department of Corrections to deduct up
to 60 days from the sentence of a nonviolent

inmate who has remained program-compliant
and free of major violations. Officials project
the policy will save almost $12 million over the
next three years. The legislation allows savings
gained from this program to be appropriated
to recidivism reduction programs beginning in
FY 2012. Mississippi also enacted legislation
that removes a 180-day cap on earned time for
completing educational or other instructional
programs. The commissioner of corrections
now has discretion to decide how much earned
time an inmate can receive.

Conclusion
States are creating and expanding earned time
programs that reduce the length of stay for
certain offenders while maintaining public
safety. Among policies that states use to
reserve prison beds for the most dangerous
offenders, earned time also creates an incentive
for motivated offenders to work, take part in
rehabilitation, and otherwise prepare to be
successful in the community. Earned time is
helping states reduce the corrections budget
burden and allows funds saved to be invested in
programs that reduce recidivism and help build
safe communities.

National Conference of State Legislatures

Cutting Corrections Costs: Earned Time Policies for State Prisoners

5

Expanding Earned Time Pays Off in Washington
In 2003, the Washington Legislature increased the amount of earned time1 available to certain
nonviolent drug and property offenders. Subsequently, lawmakers asked the nonpartisan
Washington State Institute of Public Policy to analyze the costs and benefits of that move. Steve
Aos, an economist who works for the institute, is co-author of the report.
How has Washington’s earned time policy changed and what did your study examine?

Aos

The Legislature modified the amount of earned time that could be granted to eligible inmates, increasing it from 33
percent to 50 percent of the total sentence. The law also specified which offenders would not be eligible for credit—
offenders who have a current or prior conviction for a violent offense, a sex offense, a crime against a person, a
domestic violence offense, a residential burglary, manufacture or delivery of methamphetamine, or delivery of a
controlled substance to a minor. In addition to those exclusions, eligibility is further restricted to offenders in the
Department of Corrections’ two lowest risk categories.
The Legislature asked us to evaluate the effect of the changes. Specifically, we looked at its effect on recidivism rates
for offenders granted early release from July 2003 to August 2004, the first year after the law was changed. We then
tracked reconviction rates of these offenders over a three-year period.
What did you learn about the effects of the policy change?
We learned that the early release law could affect crime in two opposing ways. First, the three-year felony recidivism
rate for offenders under the new 50 percent law was lower—by about 3.5 percent—than it was for offenders under
the old law. This finding tells us that the 50 percent law has reduced new felony convictions in Washington. At the
same time, the new law shortened the length of prison stay for the eligible offenders by an average of 63 days. This
reduced length of stay has caused Washington’s incarceration rate to drop, other factors held constant. Given that
we expect crime rates to go up when the incarceration rate goes down, with other factors held constant, we estimate
that Washington has experienced an increase in property crimes. Because our study revealed two opposing effects,
we conducted a cost-benefit analysis to determine a net bottom line.
And what did you find about cost?
On the benefit side, we found that the 63-day reduced length of stay produced about $5,500 in cost savings per
offender. These savings reflect the prison operating and capital costs the state avoids through a shorter prison
term. We also estimated that, because of the 3.5 percent reduction in the future recidivism rates of the offenders,
additional benefits will accrue to taxpayers who otherwise would have been the victims of those avoided crimes.
We estimate the avoided crime benefit at about $5,100, plus about $3,000 in taxpayer costs that would have been
incurred to process those crimes. We also estimate that some of the offenders released early would have entered the
labor force sooner and would have generated some earnings. We put this total at about $1,800 per released offender,
bringing total benefits per offender to about $15,400.
On the cost side, we believe that an increase in property crimes is due to a decrease in the incarceration rate, which
produces about $8,200 in added costs to victims and taxpayers. Thus, our bottom line estimate is that the 2003 law
expanding earned time generates a net savings of about $7,200 per offender, or about $1.90 of benefits for each $1
of costs.

	

1. The Washington good time policy is called “earned release time.” The study analyzed the credits awarded to an inmate for following
prison rules and required participation in activities.

National Conference of State Legislatures

Cutting Corrections Costs: Earned Time Policies for State Prisoners

6

Reducing Recidivism in Kansas
Facing projections for a huge and costly jump in the prison population, Kansas in 2007
adopted a package of measures designed to control the growth of incarceration while keeping
communities safe. The new strategies included an earned time credit for offenders. Among those
advancing reform was Representative Pat Colloton. An attorney, Colloton is chairwoman of the
House Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice and a member of the Kansas Sentencing
Commission.

Colloton

What does earned time look like in Kansas?
We offer a 60-day earned credit for the successful completion of one of four programs: substance abuse treatment;
a general education diploma; a technical or vocational training program; or any program our secretary of corrections
believes will reduce a given inmate’s risk of violating the conditions governing his eventual release. Unlike other
states, we offer only this one-time credit, and you can’t just show up for the program—you must complete it.
Our credit is restricted to low-level offenders, most of whom have committed drug or property crimes because of
addiction or mental illness.
What are the benefits of offering earned time credits?
Earned time motivates offenders to behave and engage in useful activities while in prison, making them better
prepared to return to our neighborhoods. These are people who typically need substance abuse treatment, job
training and other interventions to help them turn their lives around. Otherwise, they are at substantial risk of
violating their parole or probation—by testing positive for drugs three times, for example—and land back in an
expensive prison bed. If that happens, nobody wins. We want to put our offenders back in their communities
prepared to work and pay taxes, child support and victim restitution. Earned time credit is one tool that helps us
with that mission. The exciting news is that, since our reforms took effect, we have seen a 35 percent decrease in
crime among parolees who participated in our reentry programs. Parole revocations are down too, by 45 percent.
What has the political climate been for advancing earned time in Kansas?
We compromised on which offenders would be eligible. One helpful tool was a University of Kansas survey asking
residents whether they wanted state money spent on prisons or on reentry programming. Eighty percent wanted
the programming, so this allayed the fears of some legislators about appearing “soft on crime.” Finally, in passing
this legislation our emphasis was on changing overall trends, and we clearly acknowledged that individual incidents
would occur when prisoners were released. We knew, of course, that such incidents would occur anyway, even
without these programs. So, given our results, we think we’re being smart on crime and smart about how we use
taxpayers’ money. We’ve already significantly reduced the rate of re-offending by parolees. Instead of a backlash,
we’ve actually seen editorials expressing concern that, if budget cuts lead to the demise of these programs and
policies, crime will go up again in Kansas.

National Conference of State Legislatures

Cutting Corrections Costs: Earned Time Policies for State Prisoners

7

Incentive Credits in Pennsylvania
Hoping to reduce recidivism and control the state prison population, Pennsylvania in 2008 adopted
legislation allowing some offenders to trim their minimum sentence by as much as one-fourth
for completing targeted programs. Corrections Secretary Jeffrey A. Beard, who runs the state’s
50,000-inmate prison system, says the new approach makes prisons more manageable by improving
inmate behavior and increases the odds offenders will lead crime-free lives upon release.
As a corrections professional, what do you value about earned time? And how does Pennsylvania’s
program work?

Beard

A major part of our public safety mission is to reduce the risk that an offender will commit new crimes after
being released. Earned time provides an incentive for offenders to not only enroll in specified programs but
also to complete those programs, easing their reentry problems and giving them a better chance to succeed in
the community. Also, because good behavior is a core requirement of the earned-time credit, its use makes our
institutions safer for staff and inmates.
Here in Pennsylvania, we have a Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive (RRRI) for offenders who have not
committed a personal injury crime, a sex crime, a crime with a firearm, or crimes establishing them as drug
kingpins. The incentive is the opportunity to receive 25 percent off their sentence (for offenders sentenced to a
minimum sentence of up to three years) or 15 percent off (for those with minimum sentences longer than three
years). We believe in transparency, so at sentencing the court prescribes two minimum terms—the regular minimum
and the RRRI minimum. For example, for an offender who is eligible for the credit and receives a typical two- to
four-year sentence, the regular minimum would be 24 months, and the RRRI minimum would be 18 months.
Offenders get the shorter RRRI term only if they complete prescribed programs while maintaining good conduct
and a satisfactory work record.
How does Pennsylvania develop and assign eligible offenders to programs?
We have a fairly sophisticated risk assessment process. When an offender comes in, we measure everything from
drug and alcohol dependency to hostility and anger management issues and mental health concerns. We also
evaluate their background and social history. Based on all that, we put together a program to address each person’s
specific needs right when they enter the system.
How is the state expected to benefit from this approach?
First and most important, more eligible offenders will complete programming. This will have a direct impact on
reducing crime and victimization. Earned time also allows eligible offenders who fulfill our requirements to be
released before their regular minimum date. This, coupled with the expected drop in recidivism, will free valuable
prison space. The end result will be a less costly but more effective prison system for taxpayers.
The fact is that we are locking up too many lower level offenders, and for too long. From 1940 to 1980, the
prison population in Pennsylvania was flat with no real growth. It was not until our “war on drugs” and “get tough
on crime” agendas took hold in the 1980s that prison populations began to grow here and around the country.
Unfortunately, our obsession with confinement has been a costly one and not very effective. Instead, we need to get
offenders into sound, evidence-based programs that will reduce the likelihood they will claim new victims once they
walk out our gate.

National Conference of State Legislatures

Cutting Corrections Costs: Earned Time Policies for State Prisoners

8

References
Colo. HB 1351 (2009) Sess. Law, Chap. 359.
Colorado Legislative Council Staff Fiscal
Note. State Fiscal Impact for HB09-1351.
April 21, 2009; www.leg.state.co.us/clics/
clics2009a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/0E25F6511
D550D928725759A0051EBEB?Open&fi
le=HB1351_00.pdf.
The Council of State Governments Justice
Center. Increasing Public Safety and
Generating Savings: Options for Nevada
Policymakers. New York, N.Y.: CSG
Justice Center, April 2007; http://
justicereinvestment.org/files/NV%20
projected%20growth_v6.pdf.
—. Policy Options to Increase Safety and
Manage the Growth of the Prison
Population. New York, N.Y.: CSG
Justice Center, March 2007; http://
justicereinvestment.org/files/KS%20
Policy%20Impact%20Chart%20
Final%20LetterSize.pdf.
Drake, E.K., R. Barnoski and S. Aos.
Increasing Earned Release From Prison:
Impacts of 2003 Law on Recidivism and

Criminal Justice Costs, Revised No. 0904-1201. Olympia, Wash.: Washington
State Institute of Public Policy, April 2009;
www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/09-04-1201.
pdf.
Guzman, C., B. Krisberg, and C. Tsukida.
Accelerated Release: A Literature Review.
Oakland, Calif: The National Council on
Crime and Delinquency, January 2009;
www.nccd-crc.org/nccd/pubs/2008_
focus_acceleratedRelease.pdf.
Kan. SB 14 (2007) Sess. Law, Chap. 197.
Miss. SB 2039 (2009) Laws, Chap. 316.
Nev. AB 510 (2007) Stats., Chap. 525.
Penn. HB 4 (2008) Public Act 08-081.
State of New York. Department of Corrections
Services. Merit Time Program Summary:
October 1997 - December 2006. Albany,
N.Y.: Department of Correctional
Services, August 2007; www.docs.state.
ny.us/Research/Reports/2007/Merit_
Time_Through_2006.pdf.

National Conference of State Legislatures

3 to 6 months
per each 6
months of
participation;
4 months for
each 8 months
in 2 to 4 year
college

California

National Conference of State Legislatures

1 day per 1 day
of participation

Georgia

Idaho

Hawaii

6 days per
150 hours of
participation;
60 days for
completion

Florida

Delaware

Connecticut

Colorado

90 days per
completion

Education

Arkansas

Arizona

Alaska

Alabama

State

1 day per 1 day
of participation

60 days for
completion

90 days per
completion

Vocation

90 days per
completion

Rehabilitation

1 day per 1 day
working

3 to 6 months
per each 6
months working

Work

1 day per 1 day
of working

2 days per 1 day
working

Disaster /
Conservation

Earned Time

15 days per
month for service

Up to 60 days for
service

Up to 120 days
for service

Up to 12 months
for service

Meritorious

Other

30 to 60 days
at agency
discretion

Appendix. Earned Time Policies in State Prisons: Amounts Established by Law

Statute
recommends,
not mandate

Not to exceed
270 days

Notes

Cutting Corrections Costs: Earned Time Policies for State Prisoners
9

3 days per month
of participation

3 days per month
working; agency
discretion for
hours worked
in excess of 8
hours daily

3 days per month
of participation

15/85 of a day
or 12/10 of a
day per 1 day
working

Previously
earned good
time multiplied by
1.5 for working

Work

Maine

60 days for
completion

60 days for
completion

15/85 of a day
or 12/10 of a
day per 1 day of
participation

6 months per
completion

Previously
earned good
time multiplied
by 1.5 for
participation

Rehabilitation

35 days per
month working in
lieu of incentive
wages

60 days for
completion

Kentucky

60 days for
completion

6 months per
completion

Vocation

Louisiana

60 days for
completion

Kansas

15/85 of a day
or 12/10 of a
day per 1 day of
participation

6 months to
2 years per
completion

Indiana

Iowa

Previously
earned good
time multiplied
by 1.5 for
participation;
60 days for
completion of
GED

Education

Illinois

State

30 days per
month working

Disaster /
Conservation

Earned Time

5 days per month
for service

Up to 365 days
for service

Up to 180 days
for service

Meritorious

½ day per
8 hours of
participation

Other

Appendix. Earned Time Policies in State Prisons: Amounts Established by Law (continued)

Not to exceed 4
years or 1/3 of
sentence, which
ever is lesser

Notes

10
Cutting Corrections Costs: Earned Time Policies for State Prisoners

National Conference of State Legislatures

National Conference of State Legislatures

New Mexico

New Jersey

New Hampshire

Nevada

Nebraska

Montana

Missouri

Mississippi

Minnesota

Michigan

Massachusetts

Maryland

State

3 to 5 months for
completion

10 days
per month
participation;
60 to 120 days
for completion

30 days per
month of
participation;
agency
discretion for
completion

2.5 to 7.5 days
per month of
participation

5 days per month
of participation

Education

1 month for
completion

60 days for
completion

2.5 to 7.5 days
per month of
participation

5 days per month
of participation

Vocation

1 month for
completion

60 days for
completion

Rehabilitation

3 to 5 days per
month working

10 days per
month working

30 days per
month working;
agency
discretion for
completion

2.5 to 7.5 days
per month of
working

5 days per month
of working

Work

Disaster /
Conservation

Earned Time

Up to 1 year
per award and
1 year total in a
12-month period
for service

Up to 90 days for
service

Meritorious

30 days per
month of
participation;
agency
discretion for
completion

2.5 – 7.5 days
per month of
participation

10 days per
month of
participation

Other

Appendix. Earned Time Policies in State Prisons: Amounts Established by Law (continued)

Not to exceed 20
days per month

Notes

Cutting Corrections Costs: Earned Time Policies for State Prisoners
11

National Conference of State Legislatures

South Carolina

5 days per month
of participation;
30 days for
completion

Rhode Island

70 days for
minimum
4 months’
participation

1 day per month
of participation

Total of 1/7,
1/6, or 1/3 of
the minimum
sentence for
participation and
completion

Rehabilitation

3/4 or 5/6
of minimum
sentence for
participation and
completion

6 to 15 days
per month of
participation

80 days for
completion

1 day per month
of participation

Total of 1/7,
1/6, or 1/3 of
the minimum
sentence for
participation and
completion

Vocation

Pennsylvania

6 to 15 days
per month of
participation

10 to 90 days for
completion

Oklahoma

Oregon

1 day per month
of participation

Total of 1/7,
1/6, or 1/3 of
the minimum
sentence for
participation and
completion

Education

Ohio

North Dakota

North Carolina

New York

State

6 to 15 days per
month working

2 days per month
working

1 day per month
working

Total of 1/7,
1/6, or 1/3 of
the minimum
sentence for
working

Work

Disaster /
Conservation

Earned Time

3 days per month
for service

Up to 100 days
for service

2 days per
month or more
at agency
discretion for
service

Meritorious

3/4 or 5/6
of minimum
sentence for
participation and
completion

Other

Appendix. Earned Time Policies in State Prisons: Amounts Established by Law (continued)
Notes

12
Cutting Corrections Costs: Earned Time Policies for State Prisoners

10 to 30 days
per month of
participation

Texas
10 to 30 days
per month of
participation

1 to 16 days
per month of
participation;
60 days for
completion

Vocation

10 to 30 days
per month of
participation

Rehabilitation

30 days per
month working

10 to 30 days per
month working

1 to 16 days per
month working

Work

Disaster /
Conservation

Agency
discretion for
service

Meritorious

Other

Notes

National Conference of State Legislatures

Source: National Conference of State Legislatures, 2009.

This chart highlights earned time policies applicable to state prison inmates listed in statute. Earned time is defined as a credit against an inmate’s sentence or
period of incarceration that he or she earns for participation in or completion of productive activities. Earned time is distinguished from, and can be offered in
addition to, “good time” credits given to offenders for following prison rules and required participation in activities. This chart only includes earned time.

Wyoming

Wisconsin

West Virginia

Washington

Virginia

Vermont

Utah

1 to 16 days
per month of
participation;
60 days for
completion

Education

Tennessee

South Dakota

State

Earned Time

Appendix. Earned Time Policies in State Prisons: Amounts Established by Law (continued)

Cutting Corrections Costs: Earned Time Policies for State Prisoners
13

About the Author
Alison Lawrence is a policy specialist in NCSL’s Criminal Justice Program. She is NCSL’s lead staff liaison to the Public
Safety Performance Project of the Pew Center on the States, working on sentencing and corrections issues. She is the
author of several publications related to sentencing and corrections issues and is also a contributor to NCSL’s State Legislatures magazine. Before working at NCSL, she worked in community corrections in Denver, Colo., and in probation
in Boulder, Colo. Ms. Lawrence received her Master’s of Public Administration from the University of Colorado.

About the Funder
Research and analysis in this report was funded by the Public Safety Performance Project of the Pew Center on the
States. Launched in 2006, the Public Safety Performance Project seeks to help states advance fiscally sound, datadriven policies and practices in sentencing and corrections that protect public safety, hold offenders accountable, and
control corrections costs.
The Pew Charitable Trusts applies the power of knowledge to solve today’s most challenging problems. The Pew
Center on the States identifies and advances effective policy approaches to critical issues facing states. Online at www.
pewcenteronthestates.org.

The National Conference of State Legislatures is the bipartisan organization that serves the legislators and
staffs of the states, commonwealths and territories.
NCSL provides research, technical assistance and opportunities for policymakers to exchange ideas on the
most pressing state issues and is an effective and respected advocate for the interests of the states in the
American federal system.
NCSL has three objectives:
•To improve the quality and effectiveness of state legislatures.
•To promote policy innovation and communication among state legislatures.
•To ensure state legislatures a strong, cohesive voice in the federal system.
The Conference operates from offices in Denver, Colorado, and Washington, D.C.