Masssachusetts Department
D
of Correction

Tho
omas A. Turco III, Com
mmissioner

ONE
E YEAR RECIDIIVISM RATES:
R
22016 REL
LEASE C
COHOR
RT
Rhiiana Kohl, PhD,
P
Executive Directo
or, Office off Strategic P
Planning an
nd Research
h
Prrepared by:

Gina Pa
apagiorgakis, Senior Reesearch Anaalyst
Sep
ptember 2018

INTR
RODUCTION
N
Data preesented herrein represeents recidiviism statisticcs and adm
ministrative data for 22,252
criminallly sentenced
d inmates relleased to thee communityy from the M
Massachusettts Departmeent of
Correctio
on (MA DO
OC) during calendar
c
yeaar 2016 via expiration of sentence or parole tto the
community. Each reelease during
g the year iss counted, m
making it poossible for oone inmate to be
included multiple tim
mes1. For th
he purposes of this repoort, the MA DOC definnes a recidivvist as
any crim
minally senten
nced inmatee released to
o the commuunity from M
MA DOC juurisdiction w
who is
re-incarcerated in a Massachuseetts state, co
ounty or a federal faciility for a ccriminal senntence
within on
ne year of th
heir release to the comm
munity. Thee data presennted includees informatioon on
inmate deemographicss, governing
g offense, rellease type, annd sentence informationn.
MET
THODOLOGY
Y
Information for this brief was gathered from
m the MA D
DOC Inmatee Managemeent System ((IMS)
and the Massachuset
M
tts Board of Probation (B
BOP). Dataa is derived ffrom inform
mation availabble at
the time of data colleection. Data is subject to
o change in future reporrts as inform
mation is upddated.
The crim
minal activity
y of inmates released to the
t communnity during 22016 was traacked througgh the
Massachu
usetts Criminal Justice Information
n System (C
CJIS) to dettermine anyy re-incarcerration
within on
ne year of th
he inmate’s release to th
he communiity. An inm
mate can be rre-incarceratted in
one of th
he following ways: techn
nical violatio
on of parolee, violation oof parole witth a new offfense,
new courrt commitment to a Maassachusetts county, statte facility orr a federal ffacility, techhnical
violation
n of probatio
on, or probation violatio
on with new
w offense. It is importannt to note thhat an
inmate may
m be drop
pped from th
he study for one of variious reasonss, including not having been
released directly to the
t commun
nity upon fu
urther examinnation or deeath prior too the close oof the
follow-up
p period. Reecidivism raates reflect data as of thee date it was collected annd may channge as
court info
ormation is updated.
u
OVER
RVIEW OF 20
016 RELEASE TO THE CO
OMMUNITY POPULATIO
ON
Demogra
aphics
 Of
O the 2,252 releases,
r
1,7
747 (78%) were
w male andd 505 (22%)) were femalle.
 Twenty-five
T
percent
p
of th
he inmates were
w
paroledd to the com
mmunity (n=5570), while 1,682
(7
75%) were released via expiration
e
off sentence.
 The
T largest number
n
of reeleases weree Caucasiann/White (n=11,094) follow
wed by Hisppanic
(n
n=564) and African
A
Am
merican/Black
k (n=542). T
The remainiing releases reported racces of
Asian,
A
Nativee American/A
Alaskan Nattive, and Othher (n=52).
 The
T average age at time of commitm
ment to the M
MA DOC foor this cohorrt of inmatess was
34
4 years old.
 Female inmattes were slig
ghtly older than
t
males aat time of coommitment, 35 years oldd and
33 years old, respectively
y.
 The
T average age
a of inmattes at time off release wass 37 years olld.
1

In 2016, there
t
were 52 inmates
i
who had multiple relleases on the saame commitmeent number within the calenddar
year.
1

 

Male inmates were older than females at time of release, 38 years of age and 36 years of
age, respectively, due to males generally having longer prison sentences.

Offense/Sentencing Data
 Forty-six percent of the male inmates were serving a governing person offense, followed
by drug offense (23%), ‘other’ offense (13%), property offense (12%) and sex offense
(7%).
 Thirty-one percent of the female releases were serving a governing property offense,
followed by person offense (26%), ‘other’ offense (23%), drug offense (18%) and sex
offense (2%).
 Forty-nine percent of governing drug offenses among releasing inmates carried a
mandatory minimum term, including 57% of the male governing drug offenses and 14%
of the female governing drug offenses.
 The majority of the males (64%) were released from a higher security facility; 48% from
a medium security facility and 16% from a maximum security facility. The remaining
36% of the males were released from a lower security facility (minimum or pre-release).
2
 The majority of the females were released from a medium security facility (56%), while
44% were released from a lower security facility.

TECHNICAL VIOLATIONS 3
A recidivist is defined as any criminally sentenced inmate released to the community from the
MA DOC during 2016 who is re-incarcerated for a new sentence or violation of parole or
probation to a Massachusetts state, county facility or a federal facility within one year of his/her
release. Types of re-incarceration include technical violation of parole, parole violation with a
new offense, return to county custody, return to state or federal custody, technical violation of
probation, and probation violation with a new offense. An inmate, who is re-incarcerated due to a
technical violation of parole or probation, is re-incarcerated for violating the terms of the
conditions set forth regarding their release in the community, not for a new arraignment. A nontechnical return would include a parole or probation violation resulting from a new arraignment.
When reporting on the recidivism rates for inmates released on probation, it is important to note
that an inmate is only deemed a probation violator if they are released from a split sentence;
probation violators are mainly county sentenced, thus there are a small number of inmates who
can recidivate as a probation violator using that definition. Those who release with a probation
term (not a split sentence) and are re-incarcerated are considered new commitments.
Table 1, on the following page, provides a comparison of the recidivism rates of inmates released
during 2016, including and excluding re-incarcerations for technical violations. In order to
calculate the recidivism rate excluding technical violations of parole or probation, the inmate’s
first non-technical re-incarceration within one year of their release was used. Please note
inmates who were returned for a technical violation were incarcerated for a period of time
during the one-year follow up period, diminishing the likelihood of a non-technical return.

2

There is no maximum security facility for female inmates in the MA DOC.
Inmates released on parole and/or probation are supervised in the community upon release and can be reincarcerated for violating the terms of their supervision.
2
3

 One Year Recidivism Rates Including and Excluding Re-Incarcerations for Technical
Violations by Type of Release and Gender
Table 1:
Recidivism Rates by Release Type and Gender - Excluding Technical Violations of Parole or
Probation
Males
Females
Total
Number
Number
Number
Release Type
Releases
Rec Rate Releases Rec Rate Releases
Rec Rate
Parole to Community
446
29
7%
124
6
5%
570
35
6%
Expiration of Sentence
1,301
168 13%
381
41 11%
1,682
209
12%
Total Releases
1,747
197 11%
505
47
9%
2,252
244 11%
Recidivism Rates by Release Type and Gender - Including Technical Violations of Parole or
Probation
Males
Females
Total
Release Type
Parole to Community
Expiration of Sentence
Total Releases

Number
Releases
446
1,301
1,747

Rec
133
168
301

Number
Releases
124
381
505

Rate
30%
13%
17%

Rec
34
47
81

Rate
27%
12%
16%

Number
Releases
570
1,682
2,252

Rec
167
215
382

Rate
29%
13%
17%

Inmates released to the community with parole conditions are supervised for a period of time
while in the community. Paroled inmates who do not adhere to the conditions of their release can
have their parole revoked and can be re-incarcerated. A parole revocation can result from
technical violation of the terms of release, or can result from the arraignment of a new crime. By
virtue of being under supervision in the community an inmate may have a higher likelihood of
re-incarceration.


When including technical violations of parole and probation, inmates paroled to the
community had a notably higher recidivism rate (29%) than the recidivism rate of
inmates released via expiration of sentence (13%). The role of supervision to prevent
future criminality suggests a reason for higher rates for paroled inmates with the vast
majority of re-incarcerations occurring as a result of a technical violation of parole
conditions.



Of the 382 inmates who were recidivists using the definition including technical
violations, 145 were re-incarcerated for a technical parole or probation violation. One
hundred and thirty-eight were technical parole violations and seven were technical
violations of probation.



Of the 145 inmates who returned for a technical violation, seven of them had another
return within the one year period that was used when determining the recidivism rate
excluding technical violations. This small number is likely due to the fact that most
inmates re-incarcerated for a technical violation will remain incarcerated for the one year
follow up, thus decreasing the opportunity to re-offend.



Overall, the recidivism rate decreased by six percentage points, from 17% to 11% when
excluding technical violations. Inmates paroled to the community decreased from 29% to
6% while releases via expiration of sentence decreased by one percentage point, from
13% to 12%.
3

 One Year Recidivism Rates by Post Release Supervision
Table 2:

Supervision Type
Parole Only
Probation Only
Parole and Probation
No Supervision
Total Releases

Males
Number Recidivism
Releases
Rate
272
29%
702
18%
174
31%
599
7%
1,747
17%

Females
Number Recidivism
Releases
Rate
77
30%
133
17%
47
23%
248
10%
505
16%

Number
Releases
349
835
221
847
2,252

Total
Recidivism
Rate
29%
18%
29%
8%
17%



Of the 2,252 inmates being released to the community, those being released with parole
only or both parole and probation supervision had the highest recidivism rates (29%
each), followed by those released with probation only (18%). Those being released with
no supervision had the lowest recidivism rate (8%).



Males released on parole and probation had the highest recidivism rate (31%), whereas
males being released with no supervision had the lowest recidivism rate (7%).



Females released with parole supervision only had the highest recidivism rate (30%),
followed by both parole and probation (23%), and probation only (17%). Those released
with no supervision had the lowest recidivism rate (10%).
One Year Recidivism Rates by Governing Offense Category and Gender4

Table 3:
Offense Category
Property
Person
Other
Drug
Sex
Total Releases

4

Males
Number Recidivism
Releases
Rate
206
29%
795
19%
231
16%
402
11%
113
5%
1,747
17%

Females
Number Recidivism
Releases
Rate
157
15%
132
20%
118
10%
89
20%
9
n.a.
505
16%

Number
Releases
363
927
349
491
122
2,252

Total
Recidivism
Rate
23%
19%
14%
13%
7%
17%



Male releases with a governing property offense recidivated at a rate of 29%, followed by
person offenders (19%), ‘other’ offenders (16%) and drug offenders (11%).



Releases with a governing person or drug offense had the highest recidivism rates for
females (20%), followed by property offenders (15%) and ‘other’ offenders (10%). The
2016 female release cohort saw the lowest recidivism rate for property offenders in recent
years.

For releases where the numeric value was less than 20, recidivism rates were not reported in the table.
4

 Figure 1:

MA DO
OC One Ye
ear Recidivvism Rates by Gendeer: 2007‐20
016
30%

27%
24%

25%

22
2%22%

24%
1% 22%
21

20%

20%
19% 19
9%
17%

118%18%

20%
18%
7% 17% 16%
177%
16% 17

15%
10%
5%
0%
2007

2008

2009

2010

2
2011
Male

2012

2013

22014

2015

2016

Femalee

5



The
T male reccidivism ratee remained fairly consiistent from 2007 througgh 2010, rannging
frrom 22% to
o 24%. Theere was a notable
n
declline from 20010 to 20111, followed by a
co
ontinued deccrease to a lo
ow of 16% in
n 2015



The
T female recidivism raate saw a steeep decline between 20007 and 20088, dropping from
27% to 22%. Female releases had an
n experiencee similar to m
males, seeingg a decline iin the
reecidivism ratte over the teen year trend
d period, andd reaching a low of 16%
% in 2016.

Figure 2:
2

MA DOC O
M
One Year Re
ecidivism  Rates: 20112‐2016
20%
2
18%

18%
%
17%

17%
16%

15%
1
2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Year



5

Looking
L
at th
he last five yeears, the recidivism rate saw little chhange, ranging from 16%
% to
18%.

One year recidivism rattes may changee as court inforrmation is updaated and becom
mes available.
5

 Definitions
County Sentence

Governing Offense
Lower Security
Mandatory Drug
Offenders
Offense Category
Race/Ethnicity

Recidivism Rate
State Prison Sentence

Prior to the “Truth in Sentencing” law, if an offender is sentenced to the House of
Correction, the term shall be two and a half years or less. Parole eligibility and
discharge are based on the maximum term of a sentence.
Under the “new” law (enacted in 1994), discharge on this sentence will change
because of the elimination of statutory good time. There is no change in the parole
eligibility date.
With respect to an individual who is incarcerated for multiple offenses, the
governing offense is the offense that carries the longest maximum sentence.
Lower security includes minimum, pre-release, contract pre-release facilities, and
electronic monitoring (ELMO).
Inmates serving a governing drug sentence that carries a mandatory minimum
term.
Offense categories include Person, Property, Sex, Drug, and Other and Offense
category represents the inmates governing offense.
The race categories self reported and used in this report include: Caucasian,
African American/Black, Asian, Hawaiian-Pacific Islander, and American IndianAlaska Native. Inmates who report a Hispanic ethnicity are reported as Hispanic
in the race category.
Number of inmates re-incarcerated within one year of their release to the
community divided by the number of inmates released.
Prior to the “Truth in Sentencing” law, if an offender is sentenced to the State
Prison, except for life or as a habitual criminal, the court shall not fix the term of
imprisonment, but shall fix a maximum and minimum term for which he/she may
be imprisoned. The minimum term shall not be less than two and a half years. All
sentences that have a finite maximum term are eligible to have the term reduced by
statutory good time, except for most sex offenses, crimes committed while
confined and certain “mandatory” sentences.
In the “new law”, all state sentences have a minimum and a maximum term, unless
an inmate is sentenced for life or as a habitual criminal. The minimum term is used
to determine parole eligibility, and the maximum term is used to determine
discharge.
Under both the “old” and “new” sentencing systems, an inmate is discharged from
his/her sentence at the expiration of his term, less any statutory or earned good
time. Under the “new” system none of the reduction will be attributable to
statutory good time.

This Research Brief was written by Gina Papagiorgakis, Senior Research Analyst. Any comments or questions can be addressed
by e-mail: Research@doc.state.ma.us. Copies of publications from the Research and Planning Division can be found on
www.mass.gov/doc.
Publication No. 19-261-DOC-01, 6 pgs. – September 2018
Authorized by: Gary Lambert, Assistant Secretary for Operational Services

6