Measuring Recidivism: the Criminal History Computation of the Federal Sentencing
Guidelines, A Component of the Fifteen Year Report on the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s
Legislative Mandate (May 2004).

Available at: http://www.ussc.gov/publicat/Recidivism_General.pdf
Provides specific data supporting USSG Guidelines, including data on age,
gender, employment status, and educational attainment

Criminal history points are more predictive of recidivism than an offender’s
Criminal History Category. Id.at 7.

“Women recidivate at a lower rate than men, and the difference is even
greater in CHC V and VI.” Id.at 11.

“Recidivism rates decline relatively consistently as age increases, from
35.5% under age 21 to 9.5% over age 50.” Id.at 12.

“Stable employment in the year prior to arrest is associated with a lower rate
of recidivism.

“However, in CHC V, recidivism rates are higher for those with a college
education than those with less than a high school education.” Id.at 12.
“Recidivism rates decrease with educational level of recidivism.” Id.at 12.
“Offenders sentenced under the fraud, larceny and drug guidelines are the
least likely to recidivate, and drug offenders are the least of all except in CHC
I.” Id.at 13.

“The Offense Level is not a predictor of recidivism.” Id.at 13.

“Offenders are most likely to recidivate when their sentence is straight prison,
as opposed to probation or split sentences.” Id.at 13.

Conclusion: Rehabilitation programs focused on drug use or education
would have a high cost-benefit value (and should be used instead of
incarceration where appropriate.)

Recidivism and the “First Offender,” A Component of the Fifteen Year Report on the U.S.
Sentencing Commission’s Legislative Mandate (May 2004).
Available at: http://www.ussc.gov/publicat/Recidivism_FirstOffender.pdf

“The guideline mitigating role adjustments to reduce the offense level was
infrequently given: only 5.6 percent among all offenders in CHCs II through
VI received this adjustment. First time offenders were overall, only slightly
more likely to receive this adjustment.” Id.at 10.

“All offenders with zero criminal history points have a primary recidivism rate
of 11.7 percent.

This zero point offender rate is substantially lower than the recidivism rates
for offenders with only one criminal history point. (22.6%), or for offenders
with two or more points (36.5%) combined in the CHC II though CHC VI.” Id.
at 13-14.

“The three first offender groups all come from offenders with zero criminal
history points, and are defined as follows: group A contains offenders with no
prior arrests; group B contains offenders with prior arrests, but no prior
convictions; and group C contains offenders with only prior convictions that
are to never count towards criminal history. Among these groups the lowest
recidivism rate is for group A with a rate of 6.8 percent. Group B has a
recidivism rate of 17.2 percent. Group C has a recidivism rate of 8.8
percent.” Id.at 16-17.

“Recidivism risk . . . is lowest for offenders with the least experience in the
criminal justice system.

Offenders with zero criminal history points have lower recidivism rates than
offenders with one or more criminal history points. Even among offenders
with zero criminal history points, offenders who have never been arrested
have the lowest recidivism risk of all.” Id.at 17.

A Comparison of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines Criminal History Category and the
U.S. Parole Commission Salient Factor Score, A Component of the Fifteen Year Report on
the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s Legislative Mandate (January 2005).
Available at: http://www.ussc.gov/publicat/RecidivismSalientFactorCom.pdf
The Salient Factor Score method is a better predictor of recidivism than is the
Criminal History Category. Id.at 12.

Andres F. Rengifo, Vera Institute of Justice, Center on Sentencing and Corrections,
Assessing the Effectiveness of Intermediate Sanctions, Multnomah County, Oregon (July
2008).

Available at: http://www.vera.org/publication_pdf/csc_multnomah_report.pdf

In an evidence-based study done of offenders on supervision in Multnomah
County, Oregon, finding that “the use of jail as an intermediate sanction was
correlated with higher rates of recidivism.”

Recommending that courts “increas[e] the use of sanctions other than jail
and considering targeting the use of jail to the group for which it is most
appropriate, namely those who pose the greatest risk to public safety.”
Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to Reduce Future Prison Construction, Criminal
Justice Costs, and Crime Rates, Washington Institute for Public Policy, October 2006.

Available at: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/pub.asp?docid=06-10-1201

A comprehensive overview of programs that have demonstrated an ability to
reduce recidivism.