NARSOL: State by State Recidivism Studies
For missing states, no applicable study could be found. All percentages given are for repeat sexual offenses.
ALASKA: http://www.jrsa.org/projects/sex-offender-final-report.pdf, page 17: 2008
3.4 % rearrest rate after three years.
ARIZONA: http://www.jrsa.org/projects/sex-offender-final-report.pdf, page 17: 2008 2.3% rearrest rate after three years.
ARKANSAS: https://doc.arkansas.gov/wp- content/uploads/2020/09/Recidivism_Report_2015_Cohorts_-FINAL-BOC_approved_-
_added_7-2-2020.pdf, pages 6, 22: 2020
Less than 1% (0.85%) reconviction rate after three years.
CALIFORNIA: https://narsol.org/wp- content/uploads/2021/05/california_doc_adult_institutions_outcome_evaluation_report_2010
.pdf, page 25: 2010
5% reconviction rate after five years.
COLORADO:
https://cdpsdocs.state.co.us/somb/RRP/REPORTS/Attachment_F_2011_Adult_Standards_and_ Guidelines_Outcome_Evaluation.pdf, page 2: 2011
- % reconviction rate after three
CONNECTICUT:
http://www.ct.gov/opm/lib/opm/cjppd/cjresearch/recidivismstudy/sex_offender_recidivism_2 012_final.pdf, page 4: 2012
- % reconviction rate after five
DELAWARE: http://www.jrsa.org/projects/sex-offender-final-report.pdf, page 17: 2008
3.8 rearrest rate after three years.
FLORIDA: https://floridaatsa.com/wp- content/uploads/2019/01/LevensonShields_FloridaRiskRecidivism2012.pdf , page 2: 2012 5.2% rearrest rate after five years.
ILLINOIS: http://www.jrsa.org/projects/sex-offender-final-report.pdf, page 17: 2008 2.4% rearrest rate after three years.
INDIANA: http://www.hrh.ooo/PDFs/DOC_05_07RecidivismRpt.pdf, page 22: 2007
5.3%, 5.2%, and 5.7% rate of reincarceration respectively over the three years 2005, ‘06, and
‘07.
IOWA: https://www.jrsa.org/projects/sex-offender-final-report.pdf, page 17: 2008 3.9% rearrest after three years.
KANSAS: https://www.doc.ks.gov/publications/Reports/fy-2019-kdoc-annual-report, page 7: 2019
For years 2013, ’14, ’15, 10.89%. 10.13%. 6.57% recidivism rate respectively after three years.
MAINE: https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/wpsites.maine.edu/dist/2/115/files/2018/06/Sexual- Assault-Trends-and-Sex-Offender-Recidivism-in-Maine-201-24o3nu2.pdf, page 11: 2010
3.8% reincarceration rate after three years.
MICHIGAN:
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/cappsmi/CAPPS_Paroling_people_who_committed_seriou s_crimes_11_23_14.pdf, page 2: 2014
Less than 1% (0.8%) reincarceration rate after three years.
MINNESOTA: https://mn.gov/doc/assets/04-07_Sex_Offender_Report-Recidivism_tcm1089- 272768.pdf, page 2: 2007
6% reconviction rate after three years.
MISSOURI: https://doc.mo.gov/sites/doc/files/2018-01/Offender-Profile-FY13.pdf, p. 79: 2013 1 – 2% reconviction rate at three years; 2 – 5.5 reconviction rate at five years.
NEBRASKA: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/750534/ne-sex-offender-recidivism- report2.pdf, page 2: 2013
The study was actually a comparison of the effectiveness of a risk-based system versus a tier- based system. Dependent on which method was used to determine, there was a 1.7% (risk) and a 2.6% (tier) recidivism rate at two years.
NEW MEXICO: https://www.jrsa.org/projects/sex-offender-final-report.pdf, page 17: 2008 1.8% rearrest rate after three years.
NEW YORK: https://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/opca/pdfs/somgmtbulletinmay2007.pdf, page 3: 2007
8% rearrest rate after five years.
OHIO:
https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/media/publications/sex%20offender%20classification%20and%20trea tment%20in%20ohio%20prisons-%20ciic.pdf , page 16: 2005
8% reincarceration rate after ten years.
OREGON:
https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/157532, page 20: 2017
1.8% reconviction rate after three years.
SOUTH CAROLINA: https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/231989.pdf, page 3: 2010
4% reconviction rate after 8.4 years. https://dc.statelibrary.sc.gov/bitstream/handle/10827/15783/DC_Recidivism_Among_Sex_Off enders_2007-9.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y, page 25: 2007
4% rearrest rate and 2% reconviction rate after three years.
TENNESSEE:
https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/tbi/documents/2007%20Sex%20Offender%20Recidivism. pdf: 2003
Conflicting information: On page 3, the total of individuals who recidivated after three years
with offenses “similar, similar but lesser, similar but higher” is 0.055%.
Page 18, Appendix A, shows an 8.4% reincarceration rate after three years.
UTAH: https://www.jrsa.org/projects/sex-offender-final-report.pdf, page 17: 2008 9% rearrest rate after three years.
VERMONT: https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236217.pdf, page 33: 2014 4.6% rearrest rate after three years.
VIRGINIA: https://www.oarnova.org/images/docs/2005-virginia-recidivism-study.pdf, pages 5,9: 2005
3.1% reincarceration rate after three years.
WASHINGTON: Washington_SO_Recid_2005.pdf, p. 1: 2005 2.7% recidivism rate after five years.
This is not an actual study; it is a government document, a memo from the Washington State Institute for Public Policy; the study this is in reference to could not be found.
WISCONSIN:
https://doc.wi.gov/DataResearch/RecidivismReincarceration/SexualOffenderRecidivismReport. pdf, page 5: 2015
1.5% reconviction rate at three years; 1.7% reconviction rate at five years.
WYOMING: https://wyoleg.gov/LSOResearch/2005/05RM078r.pdf, pages 2,3: 2005 4 – 5% recidivism rate after five years.
This is not an actual study; it is a government document, a legislative research memo; the study this is in reference to could not be found.
Hard to believe most of these studies are a decade or more old. This makes it very difficult to prove the efficacy of their work.
Wow. These numbers are indeed frightening and high. NOT.
WAIT, what???
What happened to the 88 to 95% rate touted by lawmakers, law enforcement, the news, un-informed public, and many judges?
The results of these studies undoubtedly caused many other states to cancel their own planned studies on recidivism. After all, they couldn’t let a pesky little thing like true facts interfere with their political rants.
I was in a Michigan prison at the time of their study. The parole rate for sex offenders did increase after the study. However, it was clear that the parole board still based many decisions on their own tough on crime attitudes, regardless of an inmate’s conduct and progress. They still substitute their judgment over that of the sentencing judge of what a particular amount of time served is enough.
At one point, Michigan inmates were able to go to the Court of Appeals to challenge a parole board decision. However, as more and more of the Board’s decisions began to be overturned, they simply went to the Legislature to change the law and take away that right of appeal. Left the parole board free to act like God, with no one overseeing their actions.
I had to turn away inmates who came to me to help them appeal their parole denials. There was simply no process available anymore to appeal.
Yes…Data is Over a Decade Old…
Are there any other, More Recent Studies Available for Efficacy And Empirical Data Purposes?
Thanks
Or, Did the Studies Get De-Funded, Or Go Away Because, Recidivism is So Low?!?!?