Recidivism of Offenders Placed on Federal Community Supervision in 2005 - Patterns from 2005 to 2010, DOJ BJS, 2016
Download original document:
Document text
Document text
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics JUNE 2016 Special Report NCJ 249743 Recidivism of Offenders Placed on Federal Community Supervision in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010 Joshua A. Markman, Matthew R. Durose, and Ramona R. Rantala, BJS Statisticians Andrew D. Tiedt, Ph.D., Former BJS Statistician D uring fiscal year 2005, approximately 43,000 offenders were placed on federal community supervision, including nearly a quarter (23%) who were directly sentenced to probation and more than three-quarters (77%) who began a term of supervised release following a prison sentence. Overall, 35% of these offenders were arrested within 3 years and 43% were arrested within 5 years of placement on community supervision. This report examines the extent to which offenders placed on federal community supervision were arrested by federal and nonfederal (i.e., state and local) law enforcement agencies prior to and following their placement on community supervision. It also compares the recidivism rates of former federal prisoners to those of former state prisoners released in 2005. Criminal history and prison records were used to document recidivism patterns To measure recidivism, this study used a combination of arrest charge, court disposition, incarceration sentence, and custody information found in national criminal history records and other data sources to measure recidivism. Depending on the measure used, the percentage of offenders classified as recidivists will decline as the recidivism measurement progresses from arrest to imprisonment. In other words, of those persons arrested, a smaller percentage are charged, and an even smaller percentage are imprisoned. In the criminal history records, the proportion of arrests that included information on the offender’s adjudicated guilt or innocence and, if convicted, on the sentence imposed (e.g., prison, jail, or probation) varied across jurisdictions. This could be due to natural state-variations in criminal justice practice or in criminal history reporting practices. The variations also may have been caused by a lack of reporting court dispositions to criminal history repositories or because the repository could not connect a reported court disposition to a specific arrest. The analytical approach used in this research sought to minimize the effect on recidivism statistics posed by variations in criminal history reporting policies, coding practices, and coverage. The analysis excluded traffic offenses because those events were not commonly recorded on the criminal history records across states. However, some variations in the content of rap sheets remained and could not be remediated, such as the nature of the charging decision. For example, when a person HIGHLIGHTS Nonfederal (i.e., state and local) law enforcement agencies were responsible for approximately three-quarters (76%) of prior arrests of offenders placed on federal community supervision in 2005. About 3 in 10 federal prisoners released to a term of community supervision returned to prison within 5 years, while nearly 6 in 10 state prisoners conditionally released returned in 5 years. Nonfederal charges accounted for more than two-thirds (68%) of all arrests that occurred during the 5 years following placement on federal community supervision. On average, offenders released from federal prison had fewer prior arrests (5.6) than those released from state prison (10.8). Within 1 year following placement in 2005 on community supervision, 18% of the federal offenders had been arrested at least once. Among those conditionally released from federal prison, nearly half (47%) were arrested within 5 years, compared to more than three-quarters (77%) of state prisoners released on community supervision. Across demographic characteristics or extent of prior criminal offending, state prisoners consistently had higher rates of recidivism than federal prisoners within 5 years after release. on parole is arrested for committing a burglary, some local law enforcement agencies code the arrest offense as a parole violation, some code it as a burglary, and others code both the burglary and the parole violation. It is difficult to discern from the rap sheets, given that this is often a local coding decision, which charging approach was employed at each arrest. Offenders placed on federal community supervision averaged five prior arrests In 2005, the total correctional population was 7,055,600 of which 304,500 were federal offenders. The total community supervision population was 4,946,600 of which 117,900 were offenders under federal community supervision.1 Eighty percent of the approximately 43,000 offenders who were placed on federal community supervision in 2005 were male (table 1). More than a third (41%) were white and nearly a third (31%) were black. Approximately 30% were age 29 or younger and about 40% were age 40 or older. The average criminal history of these offenders included approximately five prior arrests. More than a third (38%) of the federal 1See Correctional Populations in the United States, 2014, NCJ 249513, BJS web, December 2015. Table 1 Percent of offenders placed on federal community supervision in 2005, by demographic characteristics Characteristic Total Sex Male Female Race/Hispanic origin Whitea Black/African Americana Hispanic/Latino Othera,b Age 24 or younger 25–29 30–34 35–39 40–44 45–49 50 or older Number of prior arrests per offenderc Mean Median Number of offenders placed on federal community supervision in 2005 Total 100% 79.7% 20.3 41.3% 31.2 21.8 5.7 11.5% 16.1 16.7 13.9 14.4 10.9 16.3 4.9 3.0 42,977 aExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin. bIncludes American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian, Other Pacific Islander, and persons of two or more races. cNumber of times an offender was arrested before being placed on federal community supervision in 2005, including the arrest that led to the 2005 sentence. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Recidivism of Offenders Placed on Federal Community Supervision in 2005 data collection. offenders were sentenced to community supervision for a drug offense (table 2). During their criminal careers prior to being placed on federal community supervision in 2005, these offenders were arrested approximately 210,000 times (table 3). This total included arrests made by federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories. Federal law enforcement agencies accounted for approximately 24% of all prior arrests. State and local law enforcement agencies were responsible for the other 76% of prior arrests. Almost 45% of federal offenders placed on community supervision in 2005 had 4 or more prior arrests. The large majority (78%) of federal offenders had only one prior federal arrest, which was the arrest that led to the 2005 community supervision sentence. Approximately 70% of Table 2 Percent of offenders placed on federal community supervision in 2005, by most serious conviction offense Most serious conviction offense Total Violenta Property Drug Other public orderb Sex offensec Immigration Number of offenders placed on federal community supervision in 2005 Percent 100% 6.2 24.1 38.3 23.9 1.9 5.7 42,977 aExcludes rape and sexual assault. bExcludes immigration and other sex offenses. cIncludes rape and sexual assault; possession, distribution, and production of child pornography; and transportation for illegal sexual purposes. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Recidivism of Offenders Placed on Federal Community Supervision in 2005 data collection. Table 3 Number of prior arrests before placement on federal community supervision in 2005, by federal or nonfederal law enforcement agencies Prior arrestsa Total No prior arrests One or more prior arrests 1 2–3 4–7 8 or more All 100% 0.0% 100% 29.6 25.6 24.5 20.4 Federal 100% 0.0% 100% 78.0 19.1 2.6 0.3 Number of prior arrestsc 210,000 50,000 Nonfederalb 100% 30.1% 69.9% 15.6 19.5 19.0 15.8 160,000 Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. Offenders could have a federal arrest, a nonfederal arrest, or both. aNumber of times an offender was arrested before being placed on federal community supervision in 2005, including the arrest that led to the 2005 sentence. bIncludes state and local law enforcement agencies only. cNumber of prior arrests rounded to nearest 1,000. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Recidivism of Offenders Placed on Federal Community Supervision in 2005 data collection. RECIDIVISM OF OFFENDERS PLACED ON FEDERAL COMMUNITY SUPERVISION IN 2005: PATTERNS FROM 2005 TO 2010 | JUNE 2016 2 federal offenders had at least one prior nonfederal arrest, with more than a third (35%) having four or more prior nonfederal arrests. 2 in 5 offenders placed on federal community supervision were arrested within 5 years At the end of the 5-year follow-up period, 43% had been arrested (table 4). Nearly half of those who were arrested within the 5-year follow-up period were arrested within the first year after being placed on community supervision in 2005. Within 1 year following placement on community supervision in 2005, 18% of federal offenders had been arrested at least once. By the end of the third year, 35% had been arrested. Aggregate trends of the first arrest following placement on federal community supervision appeared to diverge when decomposing these arrests as federal and nonfederal charges. Within 2 years after placement on community supervision, 18% of the federal offenders had been arrested for at least one federal charge, and 19% had been arrested for at least one nonfederal charge (figure 1). After 2 years, a higher proportion of new first-time arrests were by nonfederal law Table 4 Cumulative percent of offenders placed on federal community supervision in 2005 who were arrested for a new crime, by time from release, 2005–10 Cumulative percent arrested within— 6 months 1 year 2 years 3 years 4 years 5 years First arrest 10.3% 18.2 28.3 35.0 39.5 43.0 Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Recidivism of Offenders Placed on Federal Community Supervision in 2005 data collection. enforcement agencies. As a result, within 5 years of being placed on community supervision in 2005, a quarter (25%) of federal offenders had at least one federal arrest, while more than a third (34%) of federal offenders had at least one nonfederal arrest. During the 5-year follow-up period, 8% had two or more federal arrests, while 18% had two or more nonfederal arrests (table 5). When examining the first arrest Figure 1 Cumulative percent of offenders placed on federal community supervision in 2005 who were arrested for a new crime, by type of arrest, 2005–10 Percent of offenders 50 Any arrest 40 Nonfederal arrest 30 Federal arrest 20 10 0 6 1 year months 2 years 3 years 4 years 5 years Time from placement to first arrest Note: Nonfederal arrests consist of those made by state and local law enforcement agencies. Offenders could have a federal arrest, a nonfederal arrest, or both. See appendix table 1 for percentages. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Recidivism of Offenders Placed on Federal Community Supervision in 2005 data collection. Table 5 Number of arrests following placement on federal community supervision in 2005, by type of arrest, 2005–10 Number of arrests Total No arrests One or more arrests 1 2 3 4 5 or more Any arrest 100% 57.0% 43.0% 16.8 10.2 6.3 3.7 6.2 Federal 100% 75.0% 25.0% 16.9 5.9 1.6 0.5 0.1 Nonfederal 100% 65.8% 34.2% 16.8 7.7 4.0 2.3 3.5 Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. Nonfederal arrests consist of those made by state and local law enforcement agencies. Offenders could have a federal arrest, a nonfederal arrest, or both. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Recidivism of Offenders Placed on Federal Community Supervision in 2005 data collection. RECIDIVISM OF OFFENDERS PLACED ON FEDERAL COMMUNITY SUPERVISION IN 2005: PATTERNS FROM 2005 TO 2010 | JUNE 2016 3 after placement on federal supervision, nearly two-thirds of arrests were for nonfederal charges (65%). Among all arrests that occurred within the 5-year follow-up period, 68% were arrests for nonfederal charges (figure 2). After being placed on federal community supervision in 2005, the offense involved in the first arrest was related to the type of arresting agency. Charges for public order offenses were more likely to occur among the federal arrests. Public order offenses accounted for 33% of nonfederal arrests and 90% of federal arrests, including 68% for a probation or parole violation (table 6). After public order offenses, small proportions of federal offenders on community supervision were first arrested by federal law enforcement agencies for drug (6%), property (2%), and violent offenses (1%). For nonfederal arrests, the distribution was more uniform. Public order offenses were the most common nonfederal offense type at first arrest after placement on federal community supervision (33%), followed by property (23%), violent (21%), and drug (21%) offenses. Figure 2 Percent of arrests by federal or nonfederal law enforcement agencies following placement on federal community supervision in 2005, 2005–10 Federal arrests First arrest 35.1% Proportion of all arrests 32.0% 0 20 Nonfederal arrests 64.9% 68.0% 40 60 80 100 Percent Note: Nonfederal arrests are those made by state and local law enforcement agencies. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Recidivism of Offenders Placed on Federal Community Supervision in 2005 data collection. Table 6 First arrest for offenders following placement on federal community supervision in 2005, by most serious charge and type of arrest, 2005–10 Most serious arrest charge Total Violent Homicide Rape/sexual assault Robbery Assault Other Property Burglary Larceny/motor vehicle theft Fraud/forgery Other Drug Possession Trafficking Other Public order Weapons Driving under the influence Probation/parole violation Other Unspecified Any arrest 100% 14.5% 0.3 0.7 1.6 11.0 0.9 15.5% 1.5 5.8 5.2 3.0 15.6% 7.0 5.7 2.8 53.1% 1.5 8.7 25.0 17.8 1.4 Federal arrest 100% 1.3% 0.0 0.1 0.9 0.3 0.1 2.3% 0.0 0.3 1.8 0.1 5.8% 1.3 3.0 1.5 89.7% 1.0 0.5 67.6 20.6 0.9 Nonfederal arrest 100% 21.4% 0.5 1.0 2.2 16.5 1.2 22.6% 2.5 8.9 6.6 4.6 21.2% 10.4 7.0 3.7 33.1% 2.0 12.4 2.4 16.3 1.7% Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. Nonfederal arrests are those made by state and local law enforcement agencies. Offenders could have a federal arrest, a nonfederal arrest, or both. See Methodology for recidivism definitions. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Recidivism of Offenders Placed on Federal Community Supervision in 2005 data collection. RECIDIVISM OF OFFENDERS PLACED ON FEDERAL COMMUNITY SUPERVISION IN 2005: PATTERNS FROM 2005 TO 2010 | JUNE 2016 4 State prisoners have higher recidivism rates than federal prisoners BJS examined the recidivism patterns of the approximately 405,000 offenders released from state prison from 30 states in 2005 and tracked for 5 years following release.2 That study found that recidivism rates varied with the attributes of the inmate. For example, state prisoners released after serving time for a property offense were most likely to be arrested for a new crime compared to other offense types. In addition, recidivism was highest among males and young adults, and declined with age. The recidivism rates of state prisoners after release increased as the extent of their criminal history increased. 2See Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 30 States in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010, NCJ 244205, BJS web, April 2014. Comparing federal and state prisoner post-release recidivism patterns This report compares state prisoners released conditionally in 2005 and persons placed on federal community supervision in 2005 after a period of incarceration. State prisoners released conditionally include those released on discretionary parole, mandatory parole, post-custody probation, and other unspecified conditional releases and excludes those released unconditionally (e.g., expirations of sentences, commutations, and other unspecified unconditional releases). In addition to measuring recidivism as an arrest for a new crime, this study examined recidivism as an admission to prison for a technical parole or other community supervision violation (e.g., failing a drug test or missing an appointment with a probation officer) or a sentence for a new crime. The availability of this information varied in the criminal history records by state and federal jurisdictions. Given the inconsistent reporting of such custody information in the criminal history records, the return-to-prison measure relied on a combination of data sources. For released federal prisoners, BJS used the federal prison admission records from the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) (part of BJS’s Federal Justice Statistics Program) to supplement the criminal history records by capturing returns to prison both with or without a new sentence. For released state prisoners, state prison admission records from the BJS National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP) were used to supplement the criminal history data by capturing returns to prison with or without a new sentence. The measure for the state prisoners was based on those released from the 23 states in the study that had the necessary data. To observe differences in recidivism outcomes, the following section compares recidivism rates for prisoners placed on federal community supervision to those conditionally released from state prisons. (See Comparing federal and state prisoner post-release recidivism patterns text box.) Demographic characteristics and criminal histories differed among federal and state prison populations released in 2005. Four in 10 federal prisoners were age 40 or older, compared to 3 in 10 released state prisoners (table 7). Females were more prevalent among federal prisoners (17%) than state prisoners (10%). The racial distribution within both groups of prisoners was similar. Table 7 Characteristics of federal and state prisoners released on community supervision in 2005 Characteristic Total Sex Male Female Race/Hispanic origin Whitea Black/African Americana Hispanic/Latino Othera,b Age at release 24 or younger 25–29 30–34 35–39 40–44 45–49 50 or older Most serious commitment offense Violentc Property Drug Other public orderd Sex offensee Number of prior arrests per released prisonerf Mean Median Federal prisoners 100% State prisoners in 30 states 100% 83.5% 16.5 89.7% 10.3 38.7% 32.8 23.3 5.2 38.8% 38.3 20.4 2.5 10.1% 16.9 18.0 14.7 14.5 10.5 15.2 17.3% 19.2 15.9 15.9 14.4 9.7 7.6 7.2% 20.0 45.5 25.2 2.2 21.6% 29.5 33.0 11.0 4.9 5.6 4.0 10.8 8.0 Note: Federal and state prisoners are those conditionally released from prison. See appendix table 2 for standard errors. aExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin. bIncludes American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian, Other Pacific Islander, and persons of two or more races. cExcludes rape and sexual assault. dExcludes other sex offenses. eIncludes rape and sexual assault; possession, distribution, and production of child pornography; and transportation for illegal sexual purposes. fNumber of times a prisoner was arrested before being released in 2005, including the arrest that led to the 2005 release. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Recidivism of Offenders Placed on Federal Community Supervision in 2005 and Recidivism of State Prisoners Released in 2005 data collections. RECIDIVISM OF OFFENDERS PLACED ON FEDERAL COMMUNITY SUPERVISION IN 2005: PATTERNS FROM 2005 TO 2010 | JUNE 2016 5 The two groups diverged regarding their prior offending histories. Seven percent of released federal prisoners were in prison for a violent crime, compared to 22% of released state prisoners. Among most serious commitment offenses, nearly half (46%) of federal prisoners were committed for a drug offense, compared to 33% for state prisoners. Two in 10 (20%) federal prisoners were in prison for a property crime, compared to about 3 in 10 (29%) state prisoners. On average, the released federal prisoners (6 arrests) had fewer prior arrests than released state prisoners (11 arrests). Overall, the recidivism rates of released federal prisoners were lower than those of state prisoners. Among federal prisoners released on community supervision during 2005, 47% were arrested within 5 years, while 77% of the state prisoners conditionally released in 30 states in 2005 were arrested within 5 years (table 8). Compared to state prisoners, released federal prisoners also had lower recidivism rates within demographic subgroups. Differences among federal and state prisoners also were observed when examining the number of prior arrests; however, the difference in post-arrest rates decreased as the number of prior arrests increased. For example, the gap between post-arrest rates among state prisoners with two or fewer prior arrests (52%) and federal prisoners with two or fewer prior arrests (27%) declined when comparing postarrest rates among state prisoners with 10 or more prior arrests (86%) to federal prisoners with 10 or more prior arrests (72%). Table 8 Percent of state and federal prisoners released on community supervision in 2005 who were arrested for a new crime or returned to prison, by demographic characteristics, 2005–10 Characteristic All released prisoners Sex Male Female Race/Hispanic origin Whited Black/African Americand Hispanic/Latino Otherd,e Age at release 24 or younger 25–29 30–34 35–39 40–44 45–49 50 or older Most serious commitment offense Violentf Property Drug Other public orderg Sex offenseh Number of prior arrestsi 1–2 3–4 5–9 10 or more Arrest 47.2% Federal prisoners Return to prisona 31.6% Arrestb 76.5% State prisoners Return to prisona,c 59.4% 49.6% 35.4 33.4% 22.1 77.5% 68.1 56.4% 44.9 39.7% 55.1 48.3 48.5 26.2% 35.7 33.1 38.5 73.1% 80.6 75.7 74.2 53.2% 55.6 57.8 58.8 64.7% 59.3 52.9 48.6 44.5 37.7 23.5 45.8% 40.7 34.7 31.9 29.4 24.7 14.7 84.2% 80.6 77.0 78.1 74.2 69.0 58.8 62.2% 57.3 54.8 56.0 55.0 48.8 41.9 58.1% 39.5 44.0 57.0 36.7 44.3% 26.1 27.1 40.2 33.9 73.8% 82.2 76.7 73.0 61.0 51.0% 62.5 53.2 54.2 45.4 27.0% 46.4 59.9 72.2 16.3% 29.6 40.8 52.4 52.4% 67.3 75.6 86.3 31.1% 44.3 53.8 65.8 Note: Offenders were tracked for 5 years. See Methodology for recidivism definitions. See appendix table 3 for standard errors. aIncludes returns to a federal or state prison. bBased on prisoners released conditionally in 30 states. cBased on prisoners released conditionally in 23 states that provided the necessary prison admission data. dExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin. eIncludes American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian, Other Pacific Islander, and persons of two or more races. fExcludes rape and sexual assault. gExcludes other sex offenses. hIncludes rape, sexual assault, and sexual abuse; possession, distribution, and production of child pornography; and transportation for illegal sexual purposes. iNumber of times a prisoner was arrested before being released in 2005, including the arrest that led to the 2005 release. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Recidivism of Offenders Placed on Federal Community Supervision in 2005 and Recidivism of State Prisoners Released in 2005 data collections. RECIDIVISM OF OFFENDERS PLACED ON FEDERAL COMMUNITY SUPERVISION IN 2005: PATTERNS FROM 2005 TO 2010 | JUNE 2016 6 While federal prisoners placed on community supervision had lower overall recidivism rates than state prisoners conditionally released, the pattern changed when examining the types of arrests prisoners had following release. Thirty-seven percent of federal prisoners had a nonfederal arrest (by a state or local law enforcement agency) within 5 years following release, compared to 75% of state prisoners (figure 3). However, 29% of federal prisoners had a federal arrest within 5 years after release, while 4% of state prisoners had a federal arrest. Within 2 years following release, federal prisoners were nearly as likely to have had a nonfederal arrest as a federal arrest. Starting at 3 years after release and extending through the end of the 5-year follow-up period, the likelihood for nonfederal arrests increased at a rate faster than federal arrests. Compared to the state prisoners conditionally released, federal prisoners on community supervision were less likely to return to prison following release (figure 4). This finding was observable within a year after release and continued to the end of the follow-up period. Among released federal prisoners, 32% returned to prison within 5 years for either a revocation or an arrest that led to a new sentence. Among state prisoners released in 2005 in 23 states with available recidivism imprisonment data, 59% had either a parole or probation violation or an arrest for a new offense within 5 years that led to a return to prison. Figure 3 Percent of state and federal prisoners released on community supervision in 2005 who were arrested, by type of arrest and time from release, 2005–10 Percent of offenders State prisoners in 30 states, any arrest 80 State prisoners in 30 states, first nonfederal arrest 60 Federal prisoners, any arrest Federal prisoners, first nonfederal arrest Federal prisoners, first federal arrest 40 20 0 State prisoners in 30 states, first federal arrest 6 1 year months 2 years 3 years 4 years Time from release to first arrest 5 years Note: Offenders were tracked for 5 years. Nonfederal arrests consist of those made by state and local law enforcement agencies. Offenders could have a federal arrest, a nonfederal arrest, or both. See appendix table 4 for percentages and standard errors. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Recidivism of Offenders Placed on Federal Community Supervision in 2005 and Recidivism of State Prisoners Released in 2005 data collections. In addition to having a lower recidivism rate following release, federal prisoners had fewer arrests for a new crime overall than state prisoners (table 9). For released federal prisoners, 18% had two to three arrests and 12% had four or more arrests for a new crime. In comparison, 27% of released state prisoners had two to three arrests and 31% had four or more arrests for a new crime. Figure 4 Percent of state and federal prisoners released on community supervision in 2005 who were returned to prison, by time from release to first arrest, 2005–10 Percent of offenders 80 State prisoners in 23 states 60 40 Federal prisoners 20 0 6 1 year months 2 years 3 years 4 years 5 years Time from release to first arrest Note: Offenders were tracked for 5 years. See Methodology for recidivism definitions. See appendix table 5 for percentages and standard errors. Based on persons released in 23 states that provided the necessary prison admission data. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Recidivism of Offenders Placed on Federal Community Supervision in 2005 and Recidivism of State Prisoners Released in 2005 data collections. Table 9 Percent of state and federal prisoners released on community supervision in 2005 who were arrested for a new crime, by number of arrests, 2005–10 Number of new arrests Total No arrests 1 or more arrests 1 2–3 4–7 8 or more Federal prisoners 100% 52.8% 47.2% 17.3 18.4 9.8 1.7 State prisoners in 30 states 100% 23.5% 76.5% 19.2 26.8 22.3 8.2 Note: Offenders were tracked for 5 years. See appendix table 6 for standard errors. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Recidivism of Offenders Placed on Federal Community Supervision in 2005 and Recidivism of State Prisoners Released in 2005 data collections. RECIDIVISM OF OFFENDERS PLACED ON FEDERAL COMMUNITY SUPERVISION IN 2005: PATTERNS FROM 2005 TO 2010 | JUNE 2016 7 Both federal and state prisoners were most likely to have a first-arrest charge for a public order offense, followed by drug, property, and violent offenses (table 10). Table 10 First new arrest for state and federal prisoners released on community supervision in 2005 who were arrested for a new crime, by type of crime, 2005–10 First arrest following release Total Violent Homicide Rape/sexual assault Robbery Assault Other Property Burglary Larceny/motor vehicle theft Fraud/forgery Other Drug Drug possession Drug trafficking Other Public order Weapons Driving under the influence Probation/parole violation Other Federal prisoners 100% 14.5% 0.4 0.6 1.8 10.9 0.9 14.8% 1.6 5.5 4.8 2.9 16.1% 6.1 7.1 2.9 54.5% 1.5 7.8 26.3 18.9 State prisoners in 30 states 100% 15.3% 0.3 0.8 2.1 11.2 0.8 22.3% 3.8 8.8 4.7 4.9 24.9% 6.5 12.0 6.4 37.5% 2.1 4.9 15.4 15.0 For both federal and state prisoners released on community supervision, an arrest for a new crime following release was more likely an arrest for a nonfederal charge than a federal charge. Sixty-seven percent of all arrests for a new crime among released federal prisoners were for nonfederal charges, compared to 98% of arrests among state prisoners (table 11). Table 11 Percent of state and federal prisoners on community supervision in 2005 who were arrested, by type of arrest, 2005–10 First arrest Federal Nonfederal* All arrests Federal Nonfederal* Federal prisoners 100% 36.5 63.5 100% 33.1 66.9 State prisoners in 30 states 100% 2.8 97.2 100% 2.1 97.9 Note: Offenders were tracked for 5 years. See appendix table 8 for standard errors. *Includes state and local law enforcement agencies. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Recidivism of Offenders Placed on Federal Community Supervision in 2005 and Recidivism of State Prisoners Released in 2005 data collections. Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. Offenders were tracked for 5 years. See appendix table 7 for standard errors. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Recidivism of Offenders Placed on Federal Community Supervision in 2005 and Recidivism of State Prisoners Released in 2005 data collections. RECIDIVISM OF OFFENDERS PLACED ON FEDERAL COMMUNITY SUPERVISION IN 2005: PATTERNS FROM 2005 TO 2010 | JUNE 2016 8 Methodology Background In 2008, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) entered into a data sharing agreement with the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division and the International Justice and Public Safety Network (Nlets) to provide BJS access to criminal history records (i.e., rap sheets) through the FBI’s Interstate Identification Index (III). A data security agreement was executed between BJS, the FBI, and Nlets to define the operational and technical practices used to protect the confidentiality and integrity of the criminal history data during data exchange, processing, and storage. The FBI’s III is an automated pointer system that allows authorized agencies to determine whether any state repository has criminal history records on an individual. Nlets is a computer-based network that is responsible for the interstate transmissions of federal and state criminal history records. It allows users to query III and send requests to states holding criminal history records on an individual. The FBI also maintains criminal history records that it has sole responsibility for disseminating. The identification bureaus that operate the central repositories in each state respond automatically to requests over the Nlets network. Responses received via Nlets represent an individual’s national criminal history record. Under the Criminal History Records Information Sharing (CHRIS) Project (award 2008-BJ-CX-K040), Nlets developed an automated collection system for BJS to use to retrieve national criminal history records from the FBI and state repositories on samples of offenders. Nlets produced software to parse the fields from individual criminal history records into a relational database. The database consists of state- and federal-specific numeric codes and text descriptions (e.g., criminal statutes and case outcome information) in a uniform record layout. The Conversion of Criminal History Records into Research Databases (CCHRRD) Project (grant 2009-BJ-CX-K058) funded NORC at the University of Chicago to develop software that standardizes the content of the relational database produced by Nlets into a uniform coding structure that supports national-level recidivism research. The electronic records accessed by BJS through III for this study are the same records used by police officers to determine the current criminal justice status (e.g., on probation, parole, or bail) of a suspect; by judges to make pretrial and sentencing decisions; and by corrections officials to determine inmate classifications, parole releases, and work furloughs. Data collection This study is based on the 42,977 offenders placed on federal community supervision during fiscal year 2005 (October 1, 2004, to September 30, 2005). Federal supervision includes offenders directly sentenced in the federal courts to probation supervision in the community and offenders entering supervision following release from prison to serve a term of supervised release in the community. BJS obtained information on these offenders from the Office of Probation and Pretrial Services (OPPS) of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts’ Probation/Pretrial Services Automated Case Tracking System (PACTS). This information included each offender’s date of birth, sex, race and Hispanic origin, most serious conviction offense, length of community supervision sentence, and the start date of the sentence. OPPS also provided BJS with the FBI identification numbers needed to obtain criminal history records on the federal offenders. The first start date for a federal community supervision sentence during 2005 was selected for those with multiple start dates during the year. As part of the Recidivism of Offenders on Federal Community Supervision Project (award 2010-BJCX-K069), Abt Associates assisted BJS with assembling and analyzing the data. BJS received approval from the FBI’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) to access criminal history records through III for this study. This study employed a 5-year follow-up period. In February 2012, BJS sent the FBI identification numbers supplied by OPPS to III via Nlets to collect the criminal history records on the offenders. These records included arrests and court dispositions from all 50 states and the District of Columbia prior to and following the start of the offender’s sentence in 2005. Juvenile offenses were rarely included in the criminal history records unless the offender was charged or tried in court as an adult. Over a 3-week period, Nlets electronically collated the responses received from the FBI and state criminal history repositories into a relational database. To ensure that the records received using the federal offenders’ FBI identification numbers were correct, BJS compared other individual identifiers in the PACTS data to those reported in the criminal history records. A federal offender’s date of birth in the PACTS data exactly matched his or her birthdate in the criminal history records 98% of the time. Nearly 100% of the PACTS data and criminal history records matched on sex and race at the person level. BJS reviewed the composition of the criminal history records for distributional differences and inconsistencies in reporting practices and observed some variations across states. During the data processing and analysis phases, steps were taken to standardize the information used to measure RECIDIVISM OF OFFENDERS PLACED ON FEDERAL COMMUNITY SUPERVISION IN 2005: PATTERNS FROM 2005 TO 2010 | JUNE 2016 9 recidivism and to minimize the impact these variations had on the overall recidivism estimates. Administrative (e.g., a criminal registration or the issuance of a warrant) and procedural (e.g., transferring a suspect to another jurisdiction) records embedded in the arrest data that did not refer to an actual arrest were identified and removed from the study. Traffic offenses (except for vehicular manslaughter, driving while intoxicated, and hit-and-run) were also excluded from the study because the coverage of these events in the criminal history records varied widely by state. Among offenders placed on federal community supervision in 2005, approximately 2% of their arrests prior to and for 5 years after being placed on community supervision were for traffic offenses. The criminal history records from some states recorded sentence modifications that occurred after the original court disposition and sentence while records from other states did not. To ensure that consistent counting rules were employed when recidivism was measured across states, the initial court disposition was captured for any arrest charge that had subsequent sentence modifications reported within the same arrest cycle. For instance, if a court adjudication was originally deferred and then later modified to a conviction, the deferred adjudication was coded as the disposition for that arrest charge. Deaths during the follow-up period BJS determined that 934 of the 43,911 offenders placed on federal community supervision in 2005 died during the 5-year follow-up period. These offenders were removed from the recidivism analysis. Initial identification of those who died within the 5-year period was done using death information contained in the criminal history record and OPPS’s PACTS data. Additional deaths were identified by probabilistically linking the federal offenders to individuals identified as dead in the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) public Death Master File (DMF). Link Plus, a probabilistic record linkage program developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), was used to create and score potential matches between the federal offenders’ records and the public DMF, using common identifiers found on each file.3 For persons with multiple Social Security numbers and names and dates of birth, all possible combinations were tested for matches. The software computed a probabilistic record linkage score for each matched record, with the score representing the sum of the agreement and disagreement weights for each matching variable (the higher the score, the greater the likelihood that the match made is a true match). To differentiate true matches from false matches, the scores of the linked records were manually evaluated to ascertain the appropriate upper and 3Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2006). Link Plus Version 2.10 probabilistic record linkage software. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. lower bound cutoff scores. During this review, records with a score of 20.0 or higher were determined to be exact matches of name, Social Security number, and date of birth, and scores of less than 10.9 indicated that none of the personally identifiable information matched. Accordingly, these cutoffs were used as the upper and lower cutoff scores to automatically designate true matches and nonmatches. All remaining pairs that fell between the upper and lower cutoff scores were manually reviewed by two independent reviewers and independently categorized. All discrepancies where the reviewers did not agree (less than 1%) were jointly classified. The number of released prisoners who were identified as dead in the DMF likely represents an undercount of the actual number of deaths within the sample. This is partly due to the limitations of the public DMF. Specifically, due to state disclosure laws, the public DMF does not include information on certain protected state death records (defined as records received via SSA’s contracts with the states). This change, which occurred in November 2011, resulted in SSA removing more than 4 million state-reported death records from the public DMF and adding more than 1 million fewer records annually to the public DMF thereafter. As a result, the public DMF contains an undercount of annual deaths. How extensively the public DMF undercounts the annual number of deaths is not known. Preliminary analyses of deaths in the public DMF compared to those reported via the CDC’s mortality counts suggest that, in 2005, the public DMF undercounted the overall number of deaths in the United States by around 10%. The undercount has increased each year since 2005. As of 2010, the public DMF contained around half (45%) of the deaths reported by the CDC. Furthermore, the coverage of the public DMF differs by decedent age, with younger decedents being less likely to appear in the public file. Because of this, the death count of offenders placed on federal community supervision in 2005 is likely an undercount of the actual number of deaths. Missing criminal history records Among the 42,977 eligible offenders known to have not died during the follow-up period, BJS did not obtain criminal history records on 2,961 offenders because either OPPS was unable to provide their FBI or state identification number or the offender had an FBI identification number that did not link to a criminal history record either in the FBI or state record repositories. To account for the missing data and to ensure the recidivism rates were representative of all 42,977 offenders in the analysis, the data regarding the 40,016 offenders with criminal history information required statistical adjustments to account for those offenders without criminal history information. A joint distribution of the offenders was produced based on sex, race and Hispanic origin, age, and most serious conviction offense. This RECIDIVISM OF OFFENDERS PLACED ON FEDERAL COMMUNITY SUPERVISION IN 2005: PATTERNS FROM 2005 TO 2010 | JUNE 2016 10 distribution documented the number of offenders who fell into each of 236 specific subpopulations defined by crossing 5 categories of age, 2 categories of sex, 4 categories of race and Hispanic origin, and 4 categories of conviction offenses. Within each of the subgroups, statistical weights were applied to the offenders with criminal history information to account for those without criminal history information. When this weight was applied to data on the federal offenders, the standard errors around the estimates were relatively small. For instance, an estimated 43% of persons placed on federal community supervision in 2005 were arrested for a new crime within 5 years. The standard error around this estimate was 0.004%. Comparison group of released state prisoners To examine the differences in the recidivism rates of the federal offenders in this study compared to those of state offenders, this report used the findings from a previous BJS study that collected national criminal history records on a sample of offenders released from state prisons in 30 states in 2005. Using data reported by state departments of corrections to BJS’s National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP), 68,597 released prisoners were randomly selected to represent the 404,638 inmates released at that time. In 2005, these 30 states were responsible for about three-quarters of all state prisoners released nationwide. States were selected for the study based on their ability to provide prisoner records and the FBI or state identification numbers of offenders released from correctional facilities in 2005. For more information on this study, see Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 30 States in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010 (NCJ 244205, BJS web, April 2014). Conducting tests of statistical significance This report examines how the recidivism rates of offenders released from federal prisons in 2005 compared with the recidivism rates of offenders released conditionally from state prisons in 30 states during the same year. Because the recidivism study of state prisoners was based on a sample and not a complete enumeration, the estimates are subject to sampling error (i.e., a discrepancy between an estimate and a population parameter based on chance). One measure of the sampling error associated with an estimate is the standard error. The standard error can vary from one estimate to the next. In general, for a given metric, an estimate with a smaller standard error provides a more reliable approximation of the true value than an estimate with a larger standard error. Estimates with relatively large standard errors are associated with less precision and reliability and should be interpreted with caution. BJS conducted tests to determine whether differences in the estimates based on the state prisoners were statistically significant once sampling error was taken into account. All differences discussed in this report are statistically significant at or above the 95% confidence interval. Standard errors were generated using SUDAAN and SPSS statistical software packages that estimate sampling error from complex sample surveys. Recidivism measures This study used three types of events to measure recidivism: arrest, incarceration, and return to prison. Arrest: An arrest within 5 years of being placed on federal community supervision in 2005. Information presented on the number of arrests is based on unique arrest dates, not individual charges. An arrest can involve more than one type of charge. For instance, one arrest could include a charge for a violent crime and a charge for a drug crime. BJS uses the most serious offense charge when characterizing the arrest offense type. Return to prison—offenders from federal prison: An arrest within 5 years of being released from a federal prison in 2005 that resulted in a return to prison. When the type of facility (e.g., prison or jail) where an incarceration sentence was to be served was not reported in the criminal history records, a sentence of a year or more was defined as imprisonment. Information on the number of prison sentences is based on each unique arrest date that led to a prison sentence, not the date that the sentence was imposed. A return to prison also may result from an arrest for a new crime or a technical violation of a condition of release within 5 years of being released from a federal prison in 2005. This recidivism measure incorporates the criminal history records from the FBI and state repositories, and the federal prison admission records obtained from the Bureau of Prisons (BOP). The criminal history records provided information on arrests that resulted in a prison sentence during the 5-year follow-up period. Using a common set of identifiers, BJS supplemented the criminal history records with information on the federal prisoners who returned to prison for a technical violation that did not involve a sentence for a new crime according to the BOP admission records. Return to prison—offenders released from state prison: An arrest within 5 years of being released from a state prison in 2005 that resulted in a return to prison. When the type of facility (e.g., prison or jail) where an incarceration sentence was to be served was not reported in the criminal history records, a sentence of a year or more was defined as imprisonment. Information on the number of prison sentences is based on each unique arrest date that led to a prison sentence, not the date that the sentence was imposed. A return to prison also may result from an arrest for a new crime or a technical violation of a condition of release within 5 years of being released from a state prison in 2005. This RECIDIVISM OF OFFENDERS PLACED ON FEDERAL COMMUNITY SUPERVISION IN 2005: PATTERNS FROM 2005 TO 2010 | JUNE 2016 11 recidivism measure incorporates the criminal history records from the FBI and state repositories and state prison admission records obtained from state departments of corrections through the BJS National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP). Criminal history records provided information on arrests that resulted in a prison sentence during the 5-year follow-up period. BJS used NCRP files from 2005 through 2010 to supplement the criminal history records with information on state prisoners who returned to prison for a technical violation or a sentence for a new crime. Prisoners released from Maryland, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia were excluded from the return-to-prison analysis because the individual identifiers or complete prison admission data needed to locate returns to prison during the entire 2005 through 2010 observation window were not available. Louisiana prisoners were also excluded from the return-to-prison analysis because the sentencing information in the criminal history records from this state was generally not linked to the associated arrest. measures, including removal of administrative, procedural, and traffic violation-related records. The differences in the level of observed recidivism using the two measures were consistent during the follow-up period. Within 1 year of being placed on community supervision in 2005, approximately 18% of offenders were arrested while 20% had either an arrest, revocation, or both (figure 5). At the end of the 5 years, 43% had an arrest and 45% had an arrest, a revocation, or both. In summary, while independent revocation information may add some insight, criminal history records on their own provide a nearly complete assessment of arrest-based recidivism rates and trends. Figure 5 Percent of offenders placed on federal community supervision in 2005 who had an arrest or an arrest or revocation, 2005–10 Percent of offenders 50 Arrest or revocation Measuring recidivism as an arrest for a new crime compared to a revocation 40 This report focuses on the arrests and incarcerations found in official criminal history records. Recidivism may also be defined as a revocation of the community supervision when the person violates terms or conditions which may or may not result in a return to prison and which may or may not be recorded in criminal history records. As part of this study, BJS obtained revocation information from OPPS’s PACTS data on the 43,000 offenders placed on federal community supervision in 2005. To understand the extent to which revocations affect the recidivism patterns based solely on criminal history records, BJS separately tracked recidivism rates of federal offenders based on a combination of arrests in the criminal history records and revocations in the PACTS data. BJS employed the same methods to standardize arrest 30 Arrest 20 10 0 6 1 year months 2 years 3 years 4 years 5 years Time from release to first arrest Note: Offenders were tracked for 5 years. See Methodology for recidivism definitions. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Recidivism of Offenders Placed on Federal Community Supervision in 2005 collection. RECIDIVISM OF OFFENDERS PLACED ON FEDERAL COMMUNITY SUPERVISION IN 2005: PATTERNS FROM 2005 TO 2010 | JUNE 2016 12 Offense definitions Violent offenses include homicide, rape or sexual assault, robbery, assault, and other miscellaneous or unspecified violent offenses. Homicide includes murder, nonnegligent manslaughter, negligent manslaughter, and unspecified homicide offenses. Rape or sexual assault includes (1) forcible intercourse (vaginal, anal, or oral) with a female or male, (2) forcible sodomy or penetration with a foreign object (sometimes called deviate sexual assault), (3) forcible or violent sexual acts not involving intercourse with an adult or minor, (4) nonforcible sexual acts with a minor (such as statutory rape or incest with a minor), and (5) nonforcible sexual acts with someone unable to give legal or factual consent because of mental or physical defect or intoxication. Robbery is the unlawful taking of property that is in the immediate possession of another, by force or the threat of force. It includes forcible purse snatching, but excludes nonforcible purse snatching. Assault includes aggravated and simple and unspecified assault. Aggravated assault includes (1) intentionally and without legal justification causing serious bodily injury, with or without a deadly weapon, or (2) using a deadly or dangerous weapon to threaten, attempt, or cause bodily injury, regardless of the degree of injury, if any. The category also includes attempted murder, aggravated battery, felonious assault, and assault with a deadly weapon. Simple assault includes intentionally and without legal justification causing less than serious bodily injury without a deadly or dangerous weapon, or attempting or threatening bodily injury without a dangerous or deadly weapon. Other violent offenses is a category that encompasses a range of crimes, including intimidation, illegal abortion, extortion, cruelty towards a child or wife, kidnapping, hit-and-run with bodily injury, and miscellaneous or unspecified crimes against the person. Property offenses include burglary, fraud/forgery, larceny, motor vehicle theft, and other miscellaneous or unspecified property offenses. Burglary is the unlawful entry of a fixed structure used for regular residence, industry, or business, with or without the use of force, to commit a felony or theft. Larceny is the unlawful taking of property other than a motor vehicle from the possession of another, by stealth, without force or deceit. Includes pocket picking, nonforcible purse snatching, shoplifting, and thefts from motor vehicles. Excludes receiving or reselling stolen property or both, and thefts through fraud or deceit. Motor vehicle theft is the unlawful taking of a selfpropelled road vehicle owned by another. Includes the theft of automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles, but not the theft of boats, aircraft, or farm equipment (classified as larceny). Also includes receiving, possessing, stripping, transporting, and reselling stolen vehicles, and unauthorized use of a vehicle (joyriding). Fraud/forgery includes using deceit or intentional misrepresentation to unlawfully deprive persons of their property or legal rights. It also includes offenses such as embezzlement, check fraud, confidence game, counterfeiting, and credit card fraud. Other property offenses include arson, stolen property offenses, possession of burglary tools, damage to property, trespassing, and miscellaneous or unspecified property crimes. Drug offenses include possession, trafficking, and other miscellaneous or unspecified drug offenses. Drug possession includes possession of an illegal drug, but excludes possession with intent to sell. It also includes offenses involving drug paraphernalia and forged or unauthorized prescriptions. Drug trafficking includes manufacturing, distributing, selling, smuggling, and possession with intent to sell. Other drug offenses include offenses involving drug paraphernalia, forged or unauthorized prescriptions, and other miscellaneous or unspecified drug offenses. Public-order offenses include weapons offenses, driving under the influence, and other miscellaneous or unspecified offenses. Weapons include the unlawful sale, distribution, manufacture, alteration, transportation, possession, or use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or accessory. Driving under the influence (DUI) is driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol and driving while intoxicated. Other public-order offenses are those that violate the peace or order of the community or threaten the public health or safety through unacceptable conduct, interference with governmental authority, or the violation of civil rights or liberties. The category also includes probation or parole violations, escape, obstruction of justice, court offenses, nonviolent sex offenses, commercialized vice, family offenses, liquor law violations, bribery, invasion of privacy, disorderly conduct, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and other miscellaneous or unspecified offenses. RECIDIVISM OF OFFENDERS PLACED ON FEDERAL COMMUNITY SUPERVISION IN 2005: PATTERNS FROM 2005 TO 2010 | JUNE 2016 13 Appendix table 1 Percentages for figure 1: Cumulative percent of offenders placed on federal community supervision in 2005 who were arrested for a new crime, by type of arrest, 2005–10 Cumulative percent arrested within— 6 months 1 year 2 years 3 years 4 years 5 years Any arrest 10.3% 18.2 28.3 35.0 39.5 43.0 Federal arrest 5.5% 10.7 17.6 21.7 23.7 25.0 Nonfederal arrest 6.1% 11.0 18.6 25.1 30.1 34.2 Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Recidivism of Offenders Placed on Federal Community Supervision in 2005 collection. Appendix table 2 Standard errors for table 7: Characteristics of state prisoners released on community supervision in 2005 Characteristic Total Sex Male Female Race/Hispanic origin White Black/African American Hispanic/Latino Other Age at release 24 or younger 25–29 30–34 35–39 40–44 45–49 50 or older Most serious commitment offense Violent Property Drug Other public order Sex offense Number of prior arrests per released prisoner Mean State prisoners in 30 states 0.16% --0.36% 0.35 0.35 0.12 0.28% 0.30 0.28 0.28 0.27 0.23 0.21 Appendix table 3 Standard errors for table 8: Percent of state and federal prisoners released on community supervision in 2005 who were arrested for a new crime or returned to prison, by demographic characteristics, 2005–10 Characteristic All released prisoners Sex Male Female Race/Hispanic origin White Black/African American Hispanic/Latino Other Age at release 24 or younger 25–29 30–34 35–39 40–44 45–49 50 or older Most serious commitment offense Violent Property Drug Other public order Sex offense Number of prior arrests 1–2 3–4 5–9 10 or more State prisoners Arrest Return to prison 0.33% 0.41% 0.36% 0.65 0.45% 0.74 0.51% 0.47 0.88 2.08 0.61% 0.64 1.06 2.44 0.65% 0.70 0.87 0.82 0.92 1.18 1.56 0.92% 0.94 1.07 1.03 1.08 1.38 1.67 0.75% 0.57 0.58 1.00 2.03 0.92% 0.73 0.73 1.17 2.13 1.00% 0.92 0.62 0.45 0.92% 1.03 0.74 0.62 Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Recidivism of State Prisoners Released in 2005 data collection. 0.31% 0.35 0.36 0.23 0.17 0.075 -- Less than 0.005%. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Recidivism of State Prisoners Released in 2005 data collection. RECIDIVISM OF OFFENDERS PLACED ON FEDERAL COMMUNITY SUPERVISION IN 2005: PATTERNS FROM 2005 TO 2010 | JUNE 2016 14 Appendix table 4 Percentages and standard errors for figure 3: Percent of state and federal prisoners released on community supervision in 2005 who were arrested, by type of arrest and time from release, 2005–10 Cumulative percent arrested within— 6 months 1 year 2 years 3 years 4 years 5 years Federal prisoners First First federal nonfederal Any arrest arrest arrest 11.3% 6.3% 6.6% 20.3 12.3 12.0 31.4 20.3 20.4 38.6 25.1 27.3 43.4 27.5 32.9 47.2 28.9 37.4 Any arrest Percent 29.2% 44.0 59.7 67.8 73.0 76.5 Standard error 0.36% 0.37 0.34 0.32 0.30 0.29 State prisoners in 30 states First federal arrest Percent 1.5% 1.9 2.6 3.3 3.8 4.3 Standard error 0.12% 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.16 0.17 First nonfederal arrest Percent 28.0% 42.7 58.3 66.5 71.6 75.1 Standard error 0.36% 0.37 0.35 0.33 0.32 0.30 Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Recidivism of Offenders Placed on Federal Community Supervision in 2005 and Recidivism of State Prisoners Released in 2005 data collection. Appendix table 5 Percentages and standard errors for figure 4: Percent of state and federal prisoners released on community supervision in 2005 who were returned to prison, by time from release to first arrest, 2005–10 Cumulative percent returned to prison within— 6 months 1 year 2 years 3 years 4 years 5 years Federal prisoners 7.3% 14.8 22.9 27.6 30.1 31.6 State prisoners in 23 states Percent Standard error 20.7% 0.34% 35.1 0.37 48.8 0.37 54.8 0.36 57.5 0.36 59.4 0.36 Appendix table 6 Standard errors for table 9: Percent of state prisoners released on community supervision in 2005 who were arrested for a new crime, by number of arrests, 2005–10 Number of new arrests No arrests 1 or more arrests 1 2–3 4–7 8 or more State prisoners in 30 states 0.29% 0.29% 0.29 0.34 0.34 0.24 Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Recidivism of State Prisoners Released in 2005 data collection. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Recidivism of Offenders Placed on Federal Community Supervision in 2005 and Recidivism of State Prisoners Released in 2005 data collections. RECIDIVISM OF OFFENDERS PLACED ON FEDERAL COMMUNITY SUPERVISION IN 2005: PATTERNS FROM 2005 TO 2010 | JUNE 2016 15 Appendix table 7 Standard errors for table 10: First new arrest for state prisoners released on community supervision in 2005 who were arrested for a new crime, by type of crime, 2005–10 First arrest following release Total Violent Homicide Rape/sexual assault Robbery Assault Other Property Burglary Larceny/motor vehicle theft Fraud/forgery Other Drug Drug possession Drug trafficking Other Public order Weapons Driving under the influence Probation/parole violation Other State prisoners in 30 states 0.33% 0.24% 0.04 0.05 0.10 0.20 0.06 0.28% 0.13 0.19 0.15 0.14 0.31% 0.16 0.23 0.17 0.36% 0.11 0.14 0.34% 0.37 Appendix table 8 Standard errors for table 11: Percent of state prisoners on community supervision in 2005 who were arrested, by type of arrest, 2005–10 State prisoners in 30 states First arrest Federal Nonfederal All arrests Federal Nonfederal 0.17% 0.17 0.11% 0.11 Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Recidivism of State Prisoners Released in 2005 data collection. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Recidivism of State Prisoners Released in 2005 data collection. RECIDIVISM OF OFFENDERS PLACED ON FEDERAL COMMUNITY SUPERVISION IN 2005: PATTERNS FROM 2005 TO 2010 | JUNE 2016 16 The Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice is the principal federal agency responsible for measuring crime, criminal victimization, criminal offenders, victims of crime, correlates of crime, and the operation of criminal and civil justice systems at the federal, state, tribal, and local levels. BJS collects, analyzes, and disseminates reliable and valid statistics on crime and justice systems in the United States, supports improvements to state and local criminal justice information systems, and participates with national and international organizations to develop and recommend national standards for justice statistics. Jeri M. Mulrow is acting director. This report was written by Joshua A. Markman, Matthew R. Durose, and Ramona R. Rantala, BJS Statisticians, and Andrew D. Tiedt, Ph.D., former BJS Statistitican. Alexia D. Cooper, Ph.D., verified the report. Lynne McConnell and Jill Thomas edited the report, and Tina Dorsey and Barbara Quinn produced the report. June 2016, NCJ 249743 NCJ 249743 Office of Justice Programs Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods www.ojp.usdoj.gov