Introduction
During the 2001 legislative session, there was considerable discussion about the state's persistent problem of prison overcrowding despite a steady, 10-year decline in arrest and crime rates. The prison system, which recently completed an extensive $1 billion facility expansion project, struggled to meet the demands of the growing pre-trial and sentenced offender population.
One identifiable factor contributing to prison overcrowding is the high number of offenders who repeatedly commit crimes or violate the release conditions of probation or parole supervision and are reincarcerated -- often referred to as the "revolving door" of the prison.1 This trend is recidivism.
There is a significant body of research literature on the subject of recidivism but almost no information about repeat criminal activity among Connecticut offenders. No single state agency tracks the rate of recidivism among released inmates or the large group of convicted felons placed on probation rather than incarcerated in prison.
Scope. The Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee voted in March 2001 to study recidivism among Connecticut felons. The data analysis and results focused on five questions.
The program review committee's analysis of recidivism rates provides the foundation for continued research of the state's offender population, crime rates, and sentencing patterns. This report does not, however, attempt to explain all causes of recidivism, which typically are the result of complex societal issues and include factors that are difficult to quantify.
Definition and methods. In its broadest sense, recidivism can be defined as a public safety failure rate. More specificially and for the purposes of this study, recidivism is new criminal activity by a person after a criminal conviction that resulted in either imprisonment or another sanction (i.e., probation, diversionary sentence, or fine).
How recidivism is defined has an important impact on its rate, and there is no universally accepted method of measuring it. Therefore, the program review committee used multiple measurements in its analysis rather than relying on a single method. Each measurement has strengths and weaknesses, but when combined they offer the most comprehensive and accurate measure available to establish the rate of recidivism in Connecticut.
The three defining measurements tracked for the recidivism rate are:
The program review committee examined rearrest, reconviction, and sentencing data for all convicted felons discharged from prison or sentenced to probation in 1997. The committee tracked criminal activity from the date of the offender's last discharge or sentencing in 1997 through December 31, 2000. This is known as the release threshold, which is the period of time the offender is in the community and "at risk" of repeat criminal activity. Program participation data for a randomly selected sample from each group of inmates and probationers was also examined.
The program review committee's research methodologies and sampling process are explained in detail in Chapter One.
Report organization. The report is organized into five chapters. Chapter One contains a detailed description of the definitions, research methodologies, and sampling process used in this study. Chapter Two contains a summary of recidivism research and literature pertaining to patterns and trends among repeat offenders. Chapter Three provides a profile analysis of the inmate and probationer groups selected for review in this study. The detailed analysis of recidivism rates among Connecticut felons is set forth in Chapter Four, and the program review committee's findings and recommendations are in the final chapter.
Agency response. It is the policy of the Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee to provide agencies subject to review with an opportunity to comment on recommendations in writing prior to the publication of the committee's final report. A written response to the report was solicited from the Department of Public Safety's Division of State Police, Department of Correction, the Board of Parole, and the judicial branch. Appendix E contains the response from the Department of Public Safety. The Department of Correction, the Board of Parole, and the judicial branch did not submit responses.
1 Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee report, Factors Impacting Prison Overcrowding, December 2000.