Recidivism: The Effect of Incarceration
and Length of Time Served
Lin Song
with
Roxanne Lieb
September 1993

Recidivism: The Effect of Incarceration
and Length of Time Served

Lin Song
with
Roxanne Lieb

September 1993

Washington State Institute for Public Policy
110 Fifth Avenue SE, Suite 214
Post Office Box 40999
Olympia, WA 98504-0999
Telephone: (360) 586-2677
FAX: (360) 586-2793
URL: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov
Document No. 93-09-1201

Washington State Institute for Public Policy
Mission
The Washington Legislature created the Washington State Institute for Public Policy in 1983. A
Board of Directors—representing the legislature, the governor, and public universities—governs
the Institute, hires the director, and guides the development of all activities.
The Institute’s mission is to carry out practical research, at legislative direction, on issues of
importance to Washington State. The Institute conducts research activities using its own policy
analysts, academic specialists from universities, and consultants. New activities grow out of
requests from the Washington legislature and executive branch agencies, often directed through
legislation. Institute staff work closely with legislators, as well as legislative, executive, and
state agency staff to define and conduct research on appropriate state public policy topics.
Current assignments include projects in welfare reform, criminal justice, education, youth
violence, and social services.
Board of Directors
Senator Don Carlson
Senator Karen Fraser
Senator Betti Sheldon
Senator James West
Representative Don Cox
Representative Jeff Gombosky
Representative Cathy McMorris
Representative Helen Sommers
Staff
Roxanne Lieb, Director
Steve Aos, Associate Director

March 2003

Dennis Braddock, Department of Social and Health Services
Marty Brown, Office of Financial Management
Douglas Baker, Washington State University
Stephen Jordan, Eastern Washington University
Marsha Landolt, University of Washington
Thomas L. "Les" Purce, The Evergreen State College
Ken Conte, House Office of Program Research
Stan Pynch, Senate Committee Services

Contents

Summary.........................................................................................................................................1
Introduction....................................................................................................................................2
Theoretical Background................................................................................................................2
Review of Empirical Studies .........................................................................................................4
Does Incarceration Reduce Recidivism? .............................................................................4
Does Length of Sentence Affect Recidivism? .....................................................................5
Does Early Release Affect Recidivism? ..............................................................................7
Conclusions.....................................................................................................................................8
Appendix: Summary of Research Findings ...................................................................................9
References.....................................................................................................................................10

We thank the following individuals for their assistance on this paper: Sheila Donnelly, Peggy
Roper, Staci Thomas, Dave Fallen, John Steiger, and Tom Sykes.

i

Recidivism:
The Effect of Incarceration and Length of Time Served
SUMMARY
Offenders may reoffend after they return to the community. This reoffense behavior is known as
recidivism. The effect of prison or jail sentences on recidivism is an important issue to those
concerned with public safety and the cost-effectiveness of putting convicted offenders in prison.
Opinions are divided between those advocating longer sentences in the interest of public safety,
and those advocating shorter sentences with the assumption that incarceration, or longer prison
terms, will not reduce recidivism rates.
This paper summarizes the theories and the empirical studies on this issue. Study findings
indicate that the effect of incarceration (versus other sentencing options) and sentence length on
recidivism is complex and is likely to be offender-specific. For some offenders, incarceration
and longer confinement seem to increase the risk of recidivism. For other offenders, the
likelihood of reoffense will either be unaffected or reduced by longer terms of incarceration.
Furthermore, early-release programs do not appear to affect overall recidivism rates.

1

INTRODUCTION
The effect of incarceration on offender recidivism is an important issue for those concerned with
public safety and the cost-effectiveness of incarceration. Points of view are divided between
those advocating longer sentences in the interest of public safety, and those advocating shorter
sentences with the assumption that longer incarceration will not reduce, but may increase,
recidivism rates.
Those advocating longer sentences generally argue that longer periods of incarceration will
reduce crime rates for three reasons (Blumstein, Cohen, and Nagin 1978; U.S. Department of
Justice 1992):
•

The offender cannot reoffend against the public while incarcerated (incapacitation);

•

Long periods of incarceration discourage released offenders from committing additional
crimes (specific deterrence); and

•

The awareness of penalties discourage potential offenders from committing crimes
(general deterrence).

Those advocating shorter sentences argue that:
•

Certainty of punishment is more important than duration of punishment in deterring
offenders from reoffending;

•

Many offenders commit crimes due to physical addictions, or limited life choices, and are
in need of treatment programs, literacy efforts, and job training as opposed to long
periods of incarceration;

•

Prison is a school for criminals, and those who are incarcerated become more
sophisticated and more entrenched criminals (Branham 1992).

This paper summarizes the research that has explored the relationships between recidivism rates
and the length of incarceration. We limit our focus to the influence of specific deterrence, that
is, the effect of incarceration on the criminal behavior of convicted offenders after their release
from prison.
The amount of crime in a community is influenced by many factors, in addition to the recidivism
rate of convicted offenders. For example, crime rates are affected by demographic changes (such
as age, ethnicity, and migration), economic conditions as reflected by unemployment rates,
prison and jail capacities, and law enforcement policies (Ekland-Olson, Kelly, and Eisenberg
1992). The recidivism rate of convicted offenders is an important contributor to the amount of
crime, but it is not the sole factor.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Theoretically, the effect of incarceration and longer sentences on recidivism can be both positive
and negative. Theories supporting longer sentences argue that punishment (incarceration)
2

reduces the risk of recidivism by causing an emotional response, such as fear, anxiety, or guilt,
which compels the individual to avoid future punishment, and thus discourages reoffense. In
addition, longer sentences may cause offenders to conclude that a new offense would be too
costly in terms of lost earnings and other advantages associated with freedom (Orsagh and Chen
1988).
Cusson and Pinsonneault (1986) suggest that the accumulation of punishment, such as arrest and
imprisonment, gradually wears down the criminal drive because punishment produces four types
of reactions in the offenders: 1) increased estimate of the probability of punishment for a new
crime; 2) increased difficulty in coping with and accepting imprisonment, especially as offenders
become older; 3) increased awareness of the weight of previous convictions on the severity of
subsequent sentences; and 4) increased fear of punishment. In general, as the experience of
punishment accumulates, career criminals may gradually become dissatisfied with their way of
life and decide to give up criminal activity.
The rehabilitation model also suggests that certain problems of offenders, whether physical,
psychological, or social, are the direct causes of the criminal behavior. During incarceration,
these problems can be diagnosed, treated, and “corrected” or at least mitigated. As a result, the
offenders will be less likely to reoffend (Maltz 1984).
On the other hand, the negative impact of incarceration has also been observed. Clemmer (1940)
hypothesized that during imprisonment, inmates learn the norms of the antisocial subculture
from other prisoners (prisonization). Therefore, the longer offenders stay in prison, the higher
their degree of prisonization, thus the greater likelihood of reoffending.
Based on a review of the literature, Orsagh and Chen (1988) concluded that the longer a person
is removed from “outside” society, the weaker his or her social bonds. These bonds include
interpersonal, familial, work place, and economic relationships. Weakened social bonds
resulting from incarceration are likely to increase an offender’s propensity to commit new crimes
after release. Orsagh and Chen wrote:
…as the sentence becomes longer, expected legitimate earnings and employment
opportunities decrease because of the loss of contact with the job market, expected
earnings and employment in illegitimate activity increase (assuming that prison is a
school for crime), and the distaste or unwillingness to engage in 8 hours per day, 5 days
per week work activity increases as one becomes accustomed to the inactivity of prison
life. All of these effects enhance postprison criminal propensities.
Nevertheless, the degree of prisonization and weakening of traditional social bonds, and the
subsequent propensity for reoffense may not always increase with increased length of time
served. In a study of attitude changes among prisoners, Wheeler (1961) found that the degree of
prisonization was the highest among prisoners who were in the “middle phase” of their prison
terms. For newly-entered prisoners and for those prisoners who were close to their time of
release, their attitude toward crimes, justice, and discipline conformed more to the norms of the
society. Wheeler suggested that the prisonization model, that is, the “internalization of a
criminal value system,” is only part of the explanation for offender recidivism. Adjustment
difficulties after the offender is released from prison, such as social rejection, may also influence
reoffense behavior.
3

REVIEW OF EMPIRICAL STUDIES
Any analysis of the role played by time served on recidivism must take into account other key
variables such as the offender’s age, criminal history, and type of offense (Walker 1987).
Offenders who have served longer prison terms tend to be older at release, and thus less likely to
reoffend, regardless of their imprisonment experience. Offenders with prior offenses are more
likely to reoffend than first-time offenders. Some types of offenders, such as burglars and
robbers, have higher recidivism rates than other types of offenders. These individual variables
could obscure the true effect of time served on recidivism rates. Any analysis must take these
variables into account before it is possible to isolate the “pure” effect of time served.
An experimental design could help isolate the effect of time served on recidivism. With such a
design, a large sample of offenders convicted of the same type of offense would be randomly
incarcerated for varied lengths of time. These offenders would then be followed for a number of
years after release to measure their reoffense rates.
Practically, however, it is not possible to randomly assign offenders to different lengths of
incarceration. The research on this topic, therefore, has relied on statistical techniques to control
for certain known factors.
This section reviews studies addressing three separate questions:
•
•
•

Does incarceration reduce recidivism?
Does length of sentence affect recidivism?
Does early release affect recidivism?

Study findings are summarized in the Appendix.
1. Does Incarceration Reduce Recidivism?
Bartell and Winfree, Jr. (1977) analyzed the reconviction rates of 100 offenders convicted of
burglary in 1971 in New Mexico. Of the 100 offenders, 34 were imprisoned, 45 were granted
probation, and 21 were given other sentences (fines, drug and alcohol treatment, community
services, etc.). After statistically controlling for differences in age, prior criminal history, and
type of burglary, the findings indicated that offenders who were placed on probation were less
likely to be reconvicted than those who were incarcerated.
Walker, Farrington, and Tucker (1981) used data obtained from a sample of 2,069 male
offenders in England to analyze the reconviction rates for offenders with different types of
sentences. These sentences included discharge, fine, probation, suspended sentence, and
immediate imprisonment. The researchers statistically controlled for the effects of offense type,
previous convictions, age, and length of sentence. The study indicated that reconviction rates
varied according to the offenders’ previous convictions. For offenders with five or more
previous convictions, the reconviction rates were high in all sentence types. Probation was less
effective than imprisonment in reducing the reconviction rates for first-time offenders, but was
more effective for those with one-to-four previous convictions.
4

Wheeler and Hissong (1987) compared the recidivism rates of misdemeanor offenders (Class A
or B misdemeanor convictions, excluding driving while intoxicated) who received fines,
probation, or jail sentences in Houston, Texas. Recidivism was defined as any Class A or B
misdemeanor or felony violation. With three years of follow-up and taking offenders’ criminal
history and demographic factors into account, the researchers found that probation was superior
to fines and jail sentences in terms of recidivism. Although the results were not conclusive due
to potential uncontrolled factors which may have influenced prosecution as well as offender selfselection, the researchers explained that perhaps post-disposition supervision procedures
imposed by probation were better deterrents to subsequent new offenses than a relatively brief
jail experience.
Cohen, Eden, and Lazar (1991) conducted a follow-up study of 202 offenders who were
convicted in Israel in 1978 and 1979 for serious felonies. All of these offenders were
recommended for probation by their investigating probation officers. Forty-eight percent of the
offenders were granted probation and 52 percent were sent to prison. After five years of followup, either after completion of probation or release from prison, the recidivism rate was 55.7
percent for the probation group and 60 percent for the prison group. After controlling for the
effects of age, education, and prior offenses, the researchers found that whether an offender
received incarceration or probation was not associated with the recidivism rates. Because of the
high recidivism rates in both groups, the researchers concluded that “neither prison nor probation
was a very good means of reducing recidivism.”
2. Does Length of Sentence Affect Recidivism?
Gottfredson et al. (1973) studied 104,182 male prisoners in 14 offense categories in the United
States who were paroled for the first time between 1965 and 1970. The follow-up time was one
year, with recidivism defined as a return to prison. The median time served ranged from 12.2
months for fraud offenders (non-check fraud) to 58.6 months for homicide offenders. In this
study, attempts were made to statistically control for the effects of offense type, prior offense,
and age. Results indicated that while on parole, offenders with the longest time served generally
had higher recidivism rates than offenders with the shortest time served. The significance of the
association between time served and the recidivism rates varied across different offense
categories. For property offenders, all subgroups (auto theft, check offense, burglary, larceny,
and fraud) who served the longest time had higher recidivism rates than those subgroups who
served the shortest time. For armed robbery and drug offenses, however, offenders with longer
sentences had slightly lower recidivism rates than offenders with shorter sentences.
Beck and Hoffman (1976) followed 1,546 adult federal prisoners in the United States for two
years after their release. Offenders were categorized according to their “salient factor score”
which took into account their prior criminal history, age, education, employment history, and
marital status. The offenders were first grouped by their scores, and were then further divided
according to their time served. Results showed that there was no substantial association
between time served and the recidivism rates.
Gottfredson, Gottfredson, and Garofalo (1977) investigated the relationship between time served
and parole outcome in a single jurisdiction. The study followed 5,349 male prisoners paroled in
Ohio between 1965 and 1972, with a follow-up time of one year. The offenders were classified
5

into nine categories of reoffense risk according to their age, offense type, prior criminal history,
alcohol and drug use, and parole performance. Results of the study showed a somewhat mixed
relationship between time served and the recidivism rates in different risk categories. However,
the authors were able to conclude that overall, increased length of time served did not reduce
recidivism. The recidivism rates either increased or remained constant with increased time
served.
Orsagh and Chen (1988) tested the theory that there is an optimum sentence length which
minimizes recidivism rates. The researchers studied 1,425 offenders released from a North
Carolina prison in 1980. Of the total sample, 40 percent had been incarcerated for robbery or
burglary. These offenders were followed for two years and recidivism was defined as a postrelease arrest. After controlling for the potential effects of age, race, marital status, employment,
and criminal history, the findings indicated:
•

For robbery offenders, the probability of reoffense increased with the amount of time
served.

•

For burglary offenders, the estimated optimum time served was 1.3 years for younger
offenders (younger than the median age) and 1.8 years for older offenders. In other
words, beyond 1.3 years, recidivism rates go up for younger offenders, controlling for
other possible explanations. Similarly, for older offenders, recidivism rates go up after
1.8 years served.

•

For the whole group of offenders that were convicted of any offenses, including robbery
and burglary, the estimated optimum time served was 1.2 years. When time served was
less than 1.2 years, increased length of confinement was associated with a decreased
likelihood of recidivism. When time served was more than 1.2 years, however, offenders
serving longer sentences had an increased risk of recidivism.

Orsagh and Chen concluded that:
•
•
•

Time served affects recidivism rates;
The direction of the effect varies across offense classes;
For some offense classes, recidivism rates will be reduced by shortening the period of
confinement.

Orsagh and Chen indicated that the effect of longer prison sentences on recidivism “is complex
and is likely to be offender specific. …A sentence can be either too long or too short for a
specific individual.”

6

3. Does Early Release Affect Recidivism?
During the past decade, many states have relied on early release programs as a means of
relieving prison overcrowding. Early release shortens the length of time served and may change
offenders’ perceptions about the certainty and severity of punishment.
Berecochea and Jaman (1981) conducted an experimental study to examine the relationship
between early release and recidivism rates. The sample included male felony offenders in
California who were eligible for parole between March and August 1970. The average prison
term of the sample was three years. These offenders were randomly assigned to one of two
groups: 1) the experimental group who received a six months reduction in prison term (on
average, a 16 percent reduction), and 2) the control group who served their normal terms. At 12
months of follow-up, the early release group had a parole failure rate1 of 34.4 percent compared
to 28.2 percent for the control group. At 24 months after release, the parole failure rate was 47.4
percent for the early release group and 39.5 percent for the control group. However, these
differences in recidivism rates were not statistically significant (i.e., the differences could have
occurred by chance). The authors concluded that time served in prison could be reduced without
affecting overall post-release recidivism.
Sims and O’Connell (1985) studied the impact of early release programs on 1,674 prisoners in
Washington State who received early parole between 1979 and 1984 in six early release efforts.
On the average, these offenders were released 4.6 months earlier than expected. A group of
1,867 offenders who were released 12 months before the first early release effort was used as a
comparison group. Recidivism was defined as a return to prison. Results showed that, in
general, the recidivism rates of the early release offenders at one, two, and three years of followup were lower or about equal to the recidivism rates for the comparison group. The type of new
offenses committed by the early release offenders were similar to those committed by the
comparison group. Nevertheless, offenders in the third effort of early release had significantly
higher recidivism rates than the comparison groups. The researchers suggested that the higher
recidivism rates in the third early release effort were most likely due to a higher percentage of
habitual offenders. In this study, the independent effect of early release on offender recidivism
was not assessed.
Austin (1986) evaluated the recidivism rates in a sample of 1,428 prisoners who received early
release from Illinois prisons between 1980 and 1983. This sample represented a total of 21,000
early-release prisoners. Their recidivism rates were compared to those who served their full
terms during the same period. On the average, these offenders were released 3.5 months earlier
than their full terms. Results showed that at one year of follow-up, the rearrest rate for offenders
who received early release (42 percent) was lower than the rate for offenders who served their
full prison terms (49 percent). However, after controlling for the effect of age, criminal history,
severity of current offense, and institutional conduct, the lower recidivism rate was not attributed
to early release. The author concluded that early release had no impact on overall recidivism
rates.

1

A parole failure includes either a new arrest or a parole violation.
7

CONCLUSIONS
To date, only a limited number of studies have examined the relationship between time served
and post-release recidivism. This literature review indicates that the effects of incarceration
(versus other sentencing options) and the length of time served on recidivism are perhaps
offender-specific. The direction and the extent of these effects upon the offenders may be
influenced by the jurisdiction and offender characteristics such as age, offense type, prior
offense, and prior sentence experiences. For some offenders, incarceration and longer
confinement increase the risk of recidivism. For other offenders, recidivism rates will either be
unaffected or reduced by longer terms of incarceration. It is possible that for some types of
offenders, there is an optimum length of sentence which minimizes recidivism. Early release
(only a few months early in the studies reviewed) appears to neither increase nor decrease the
overall recidivism rates. More research is needed for a better understanding about the effects of
time served and early release on the reoffending behavior of specific types of offenders.

8

APPENDIX: Summary of Research Findings
Effects of Incarceration on Recidivism

Study

1. Does incarceration reduce recidivism?
Incarceration less effective than probation

Bartell & Winfree, Jr., 1977, New Mexico
Wheeler & Hissong, 1987, Texas

Incarceration less effective than probation for
offenders with 1-4 prior convictions

Walker, Farrington, & Tucker, 1981,
England

Incarceration more effective than probation for
First-time offenders

Walker, Farrington, & Tucker, 1981,
England

No significant difference between incarceration
and probation

Cohen, Eden, & Lazar, 1991, Israel

2. Does longer sentence length affect recidivism?2
Negative effect for property offenders

Gottfredson et al., 1973, US

Negative effect for robbery offenders

Orsagh and Chen, 1988, North Carolina

Negative or no effect

Gottfredson et al., 1973, Ohio

Positive effect for armed robbery and drug
offenders

Gottfredson et al., 1973, US

No effect

Beck and Hoffman, 1976, US

Optimum sentence length

Orsagh and Chen, 1988, North Carolina

3. Does early release affect recidivism?
No effect

Berecochea and Jaman, 1981, California
Austin, 1986, Illinois

No effect or positive effect

Sims and O’Connell, 1985, Washington

2

Negative (positive) effect indicates that offenders with longer length of time served had higher (lower) recidivism
rates than offenders with shorter length of time served.
9

References
Austin, J. (1986). “Using Early Release to Relieve Prison Crowding: A Dilemma for Public
Policy.” Crime & Delinquency. 32(4): pp. 404-502.
Bartell, T. and Winfree, Jr. L.T. (1977). “Recidivist Impacts of Differential Sentencing Practices
for Burglary Offenders.” Criminology. 15(3): pp. 387-395.
Beck, J.L. and Hoffman, P.B. (1976). “Time Served and Release Performance: A Research
Note.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. 13: pp. 127-132.
Berecochea, J. and Jaman, D. (1981). “Time Served in Prison and Parole Outcome: An
Experimental Study.” Report 2. Sacramento: California Department of Corrections.
Blumstein, A., Cohen, J. and Nagin, D. (eds.) (1978). “Deterrence and Incapacitation: Estimating
the Effects of Criminal Sanctions on Crime Rates.” National Academy of Sciences.
Washington, D.C.
Branham, L.S. (1992). “The Use of Incarceration in the United States: A Look at the Present and
the Future.” American Bar Association, Criminal Justice Section.
Clemmer, D. (1940). “The Prison Community.” (Reissued 1958. New York, Holt, Rinehart &
Winston). Cited in: Bondeson, U.V. (1990). “Criminal Careers in Correction.”
International Annals of Criminology. 28(1-2): pp. 135-150.
Cohen, B., Eden, R. and Lazar, A. (1991). “The Efficacy of Probation Versus Imprisonment in
Reducing Recidivism of Serious Offenders in Israel.” Journal of Criminal Justice. 19: pp.
263-270.
Cusson, M. and Pinsonneault, P. (1986). “The Decision to Give Up Crime.” In D.B. Cornish &
R.V. Clarke (Eds.), “The Reasoning Criminal: Rational Choice Perspectives on
Offending.” New York, p. 72-82.
Ekland-Olson, S., Kelly, W.R. and Eisenberg, M. (1992). “Crime and Incarceration: Some
Comparative Findings from the 1980s.” Crime & Delinquency. 38(3): 392-416.
Gottfredson, D.M., Neithercutt, M.G., Nuffield, J. and O’Leary, V. (1973). “Four Thousand
Lifetimes: A Study of Time Served and Parole Outcomes.” National Council on Crime
and Delinquency, Davis, CA.
Gottfredson, D.M., Gottfredson, M.R. and Garofalo, J. (1977). “Time Served in Prison and
Parole Outcomes Among Parolee Risk Categories.” Journal of Criminal Justice. 5:
pp. 1-12.

10

Orsagh, T. and Chen, J.R. (1988). “The Effect of Time Served on Recidivism: An
Interdisciplinary Theory.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology. 4(2): pp. 155-171.
Sims, B. and O’Connell, J. (1985). “Early Release: Prison Overcrowding and Public Safety
Implications.” Olympia, Washington, Office of Financial Management.
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Policy and Communications. (1992). The Case for More
Incarceration. Washington DC.
Walker, N. (1987). “The Unwanted Effects of Long-Term Imprisonment.” In: Problems of LongTerm Imprisonment. Bottoms, A.E. and Roy Light (eds.). Gower, Aldershot.
pp. 194-196.
Walker, N., Farrington D.P. and Tucker, G. (1981). “Reconviction Rates of Adult Males After
Different Sentences.” British Journal of Criminology. 21(4): pp. 357-360.
Wheeler, G.R. and Hissong, R.V. (1988). “A Survival Time Analysis of Criminal Sanctions For
Misdemeanor Offenders: A Case for Alternatives to Incarceration.” Evaluation Review.
12(5): pp. 510-527.
Wheeler, S. (1961). “Socialization in Correctional Communities.” American Sociological
Review. 26: pp. 697-712.

11