Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics,
Reintegration into the Community,
and Recidivism

Nathan James
Analyst in Crime Policy
February 25, 2014
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL34287


Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

Summary
The prison population in the United States has been growing steadily for more than 30 years. The
Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that since 1990 an average of 590,400 inmates have been
released annually from state and federal prisons and almost 5 million ex-offenders are under some
form of community-based supervision. Offender reentry can include all the activities and
programming conducted to prepare ex-convicts to return safely to the community and to live as
law-abiding citizens. Some ex-offenders, however, eventually end up back in prison. The most
recent national-level recidivism study is 10 years old; this study showed that two-thirds of ex-
offenders released in 1994 came back into contact with the criminal justice system within three
years of their release. Compared with the average American, ex-offenders are less educated, less
likely to be gainfully employed, and more likely to have a history of mental illness or substance
abuse—all of which have been shown to be risk factors for recidivism.
Three phases are associated with offender reentry programs: programs that take place during
incarceration, which aim to prepare offenders for their eventual release; programs that take place
during offenders’ release period, which seek to connect ex-offenders with the various services
they may require; and long-term programs that take place as ex-offenders permanently reintegrate
into their communities, which attempt to provide offenders with support and supervision. There is
a wide array of offender reentry program designs, and these programs can differ significantly in
range, scope, and methodology. Researchers in the offender reentry field have suggested that the
best programs begin during incarceration and extend throughout the release and reintegration
process. Despite the relative lack of research in the field of offender reentry, an emerging “what
works” literature suggests that programs focusing on work training and placement, drug and
mental health treatment, and housing assistance have proven to be effective.
The federal government’s involvement in offender reentry programs typically occurs through
grant funding, which is available through a wide array of federal programs at the Departments of
Justice, Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services. However, only a handful of grant
programs in the federal government are designed explicitly for offender reentry purposes.
The Second Chance Act (P.L. 110-199) was enacted on April 9, 2008. The act expanded the
existing offender reentry grant program at the Department of Justice and created a wide array of
targeted grant-funded pilot programs.

Congressional Research Service

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

Contents
Background ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Correctional System Statistics ......................................................................................................... 2
Population in Correctional Facilities ......................................................................................... 2
Offenders Under Community Supervision ................................................................................ 3
Probation ............................................................................................................................. 4
Parole ................................................................................................................................... 4
Recidivism ................................................................................................................................. 5
Bureau of Justice Statistics 1994 Recidivism Study ........................................................... 6
Pew Recidivism Study ........................................................................................................ 7
United States Sentencing Commission Study ..................................................................... 7
National Recidivism Study Limitations .............................................................................. 8
Importance of Considering Other Outcome Measures ........................................................ 9
Lack of Current Federal Recidivism Statistics .................................................................... 9
Offender Reentry: A Brief Literature Review ................................................................................ 10
Offender Reentry Defined ....................................................................................................... 10
Program Effectiveness: The “What Works” Literature ............................................................ 11
Employment ...................................................................................................................... 12
Drug Treatment ................................................................................................................. 12
Halfway House Programs .................................................................................................. 12
Other Kinds of Programs ................................................................................................... 13
Limitations of the “What Works” Literature ..................................................................... 13
Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 13
Federal Offender Reentry Programs .............................................................................................. 14
Offender Reentry Programs at the Department of Justice (DOJ) ............................................ 14
Offender Reentry Programs at Other Federal Agencies .......................................................... 15
The Department of Labor (DOL) ...................................................................................... 16
The Department of Education (DOE) ............................................................................... 16
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) ......................................... 17
The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) ................................................ 17
Coordination Between Federal Agencies ................................................................................ 17
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 18

Figures
Figure 1. Number of Inmates Incarcerated in the United States, 1980-2012 ................................... 3
Figure 2. Number of Offenders Under Community Supervision, 1980-2012 ................................. 5

Tables
Table B-1. Authorized and Appropriated Funding for the DOJ Reentry Program, FY2001-
FY2008 ....................................................................................................................................... 29
Congressional Research Service

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

Table B-2. Authorized and Appropriated Funding for the Second Chance Act Grant
Programs Administered by the Department of Justice, FY2009-FY2014 .................................. 29

Appendixes
Appendix A. Section-by-Section Comparison of the Second Chance Act .................................... 20
Appendix B. Appropriations for DOJ Reentry Grant Programs .................................................... 29

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 30

Congressional Research Service

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

Background
Over 95% of the prison population today will be released at some point in the future.1 Since 1990,
an average of 590,400 inmates have been released annually from state and federal prisons.2 The
Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has estimated that two-thirds
of all released prisoners will be rearrested within three years of their release and about half will
be reconvicted.3 Many studies have indicated that reentry initiatives that combine work training
and placement with counseling and housing assistance can reduce recidivism rates.4 According to
the BJS, the average per prisoner cost of incarceration in state prison in 2010 was approximately
$28,000 per year.5 States collectively spent nearly $48.5 billion on their correctional systems in
2010, the most recent year for which data are available.6
Offender reentry includes all the activities and programming conducted to prepare ex-convicts to
return safely to the community and to live as law-abiding citizens. Reentry programs are typically
divided into three phases: programs that prepare offenders to reenter society while they are in
prison, programs that connect ex-offenders with services immediately after they are released from
prison, and programs that provide long-term support and supervision for ex-offenders as they
settle into communities permanently. Offender reentry programs vary widely in range, scope, and
methodology. The best-designed programs, according to the research in the field, are those that
span all three phases.7
A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report also suggests that post-release planning
should begin as early as possible, ideally as soon as an inmate is admitted into prison or even
immediately after sentencing. Such planning could include helping the offender to develop the
skills and knowledge base necessary to find a job and have access to education, such as General
Equivalency Degree classes for those who have not completed high school, and either vocational
training or college classes for those that have completed high school but have not entered into a
career.8
As offenders approach their release date, the research suggests that reentry planning focus on
connecting offenders with the community and workplace resources they will need to get

1 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, “Reentry,” http://www.reentry.gov/.
2 E. Ann Carson and Daniela Golinelli, Prisoners in 2012: Trends in Admissions and Releases 1991-2012, U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 243920, Washington, DC,
December 2013, p. 3, http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p12tar9112.pdf.
3 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Reentry Trends in the United
States: Recidivism,” on file with the author. Hereafter cited as “Reentry Trends.”
4 Wilkinson, Reginald A., Director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, “Offender Reentry: A
Storm Overdue,” Paper Prepared for Third National Forum on Restorative Justice, March 2002, on file with the author.
Hereafter cited as “A Storm Overdue.”
5 Tracey Kyckelhahn, State Corrections Expenditures, FY1982-2010, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ239672, Washington, DC, December 2012, p. 4, http://www.bjs.gov/
content/pub/pdf/scefy8210.pdf.
6 Ibid., p. 11.
7 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, “Learn About Reentry,” http://www.reentry.gov/learn.html.
Hereafter cited as “Learn About Reentry.”
8 U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Prisoner Release: Trends and Information on Reintegration Programs,”
GAO-01-483, June 2001, pp. 19-25. Hereafter referred to as “GAO Prisoner Release Report.”
Congressional Research Service
1

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

established. Again, employment and access to education have been cited by many studies as two
of the most important aspects contributing to the successful reintegration of ex-offenders into
society.9 Lastly, studies suggest it is important for the reentry process to continue as offenders
reintegrate into society. Indeed, for many offenders, the first few weeks of adjustment after
release are actually less difficult than the longer period of community reintegration.10 In many
cases, this period of time can span the entire three to five years that offenders are sometimes
supervised in the community.11
Correctional System Statistics
To understand the issue of offender reentry, one must first understand the ways in which ex-
offenders are released into the community. It is also worthwhile to analyze the population of
individuals serving sentences in correctional facilities, because the number of offenders re-
entering the community is necessarily related to the number and type of offenders serving prison
sentences. This section analyzes national data on the nation’s correctional system.
Population in Correctional Facilities
The correctional system includes two main forms of detention: jails and prisons. Jails, also known
as local lockups, are facilities generally used to temporarily detain individuals who have been
arrested or charged with a crime but not usually convicted.12 The jail population is thus extremely
fluid, with individuals usually staying for a matter of weeks, and includes individuals who may
never be convicted of a crime. Prisons, on the other hand, typically house individuals who have
been convicted of a crime and sentenced to a term of one year or longer. For this reason, the
prison population is less fluid than the jail population.
The number of inmates incarcerated in correctional facilities steadily increased between 1980 and
2008 when it reached its peak of just more than 2.3 million inmates. However, in recent years the
number of incarcerated individuals has declined. The number of inmates in prisons and local jails
decreased by 15,400 (-0.7%) inmates in 2009, 21,900 (-1.0%) inmates in 2010, 30,400 (-1.3%)
inmates in 2011, and 11,300 (-0.5%) in 2012. The decrease in the correctional population in 2009
was the result of a declining jail population, but in 2010 and 2011, there was a decrease in the
number of inmates held in both jails and prisons. The overall correctional population decreased
again in 2012, but this was the result of a decline in the number of inmates held in prison; the
number of inmates held in jails increased. Between 1980 and 2008, the number of people
imprisoned in the United States increased, on average, 5.7% per year. However, the number of
incarcerated persons has decreased, on average, by 0.9% annually since 2009. Figure 1 shows the
number of inmates incarcerated in the United States from 1980 to 2012 (the most recent data
available).

9 A Storm Overdue.
10 Taxman, Faye et al., “Targeting for Reentry: Matching Needs and Services to Maximize Public Safety,” National
Criminal Justice Reference Service, March 25, 2002.
11 GAO Prisoner Release Report, p. 5.
12 While this is generally the case, jails on occasion can also include individuals sentenced to prison terms lasting less
than one year (misdemeanors) and convicted felons in jurisdictions where the prisons are overpopulated.
Congressional Research Service
2

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

Figure 1. Number of Inmates Incarcerated in the United States, 1980-2012
Number of inmates in thousands
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Jail
Prison

Source: The 1980-2011 jail and prison population counts were taken from Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics
(online)
, Table 6.1.2011. The 2012 jail population counts were taken from U.S. Department of Justice, Office of
Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Jail Inmates and Midyear 2012—Statistical Tables and the 2012 prison
population counts were taken from U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, Prisoners in 2012—Advanced Counts.
Given the fact that 95% of all inmates will eventually return to the community,13 the prison
population has a direct impact on offender reentry. As the prison population grows, increasing
numbers of ex-offenders are being released from correctional facilities. Most of these ex-
offenders are required to undergo some form of community supervision as part of their release.
The following section explores the mechanisms and statistics surrounding the release of prisoners
into the community.
Offenders Under Community Supervision
Ex-offenders can be released into the community through a variety of different mechanisms.
Some offenders never serve prison sentences and instead serve their sentence on probation in
their communities under supervision. Others serve most of their sentences in correctional
facilities but are then released on parole to finish their sentences in their communities under
supervision. Lastly, some offenders serve out their entire sentences in correctional facilities and
are released unconditionally into the community.

13 Reentry Trends.
Congressional Research Service
3

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

Probation
Individuals who are found guilty of committing a crime that is deemed not serious enough for
imprisonment can be sentenced to serve their sentences under community supervision
(probation). Offenders on probation typically must adhere to certain conditions and check in
regularly with their probation officers. Violation of these conditions or failure to appear before
their probation officers can lead to further criminal sanctions, including incarceration. In some
instances, offenders can be sentenced to a mixed term of prison and probation.
Parole
Individuals who have served most of their sentences in a correctional facility are sometimes
eligible to complete their sentences in the community under conditional supervision. While some
states have a parole system in place, Congress abolished parole at the federal level effective in
1986. However, there is a small percentage of federal offenders who were sentenced prior to 1986
who are still eligible for parole. The conditions associated with parole can vary from case to case,
but typically include drug testing and regular contact with a parole officer. Violations of these
conditions can result in the parolee returning to prison to serve out the remaining portion of his or
her sentence. There are two different kinds of parole: discretionary and mandatory.
Discretionary Parole
States that use parole boards to determine whether a prisoner should be released into the
community have discretionary parole. Parole boards have the authority to conditionally release a
prisoner into the community based on a statutory or an administrative determination that the
prisoner is eligible.
Mandatory Parole
States that have statutory language determining when offenders should be released into the
community have mandatory parole. Jurisdictions that use determinate sentencing14 often include
provisions specifying when inmates should be conditionally released from prison after serving a
specified portion of their original sentences.
Figure 2 shows the number of offenders who were supervised in the community, either through
probation or through parole, during the period from 1980 to 2012 (the most recent data available).
It is important to note that between 1980 and 2012, parolees accounted for, on average, 16.1% of
the overall population under community supervision. The growing state prison population has
resulted in a concomitant growth in the overall population of offenders under community
supervision. Interestingly, however, the growth rate of individuals under community supervision
has been lagging behind the growth rate of individuals in correctional facilities. This is likely due
to the fact that a growing number of offenders are being released directly into the community
without any form of supervision. Figure 2 shows that the number of offenders under community

14 A determinate sentence is a fixed sentence, while an indeterminate sentence is typically expressed as a range (i.e., 5
to 10 years). For additional information on sentencing guidelines, please refer to CRS Report RL32766, Federal
Sentencing Guidelines: Background, Legal Analysis, and Policy Options
, by Lisa Seghetti and Alison M. Smith.
Congressional Research Service
4

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

supervision increased by approximately 258% from 1980 to 2012; this contrasts with the overall
prison population, which grew by approximately 344% during this period.
Figure 2. Number of Offenders Under Community Supervision, 1980-2012
Number of offenders in millions
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Probation
Parole

Source: The 1980-2011 numbers of probationers and parolees were taken from Sourcebook of Criminal Justice
Statistics (online)
, Table 6.1.2011. The 2012 number of probationers and parolees was taken from U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Probation and Parole in the United
States, 2012
.
The relationship between the prison and parole populations is an important one for a number of
reasons. Offenders serving their sentences in prison have generally committed more serious
crimes than offenders who serve their sentences in jail or on probation; as previously noted, the
prison population typically includes individuals sentenced to more than a year of incarceration.
Parolees, meanwhile, often return to the community after a prolonged period of incarceration and
usually face a period of adjustment.
Recidivism
Recidivism is often defined as the rearrest, reconviction, or reincarceration of an ex-offender
within a given time frame. As a result of this broad definition of recidivism, most studies include
technical violations of an offender’s parole or probation (such as failing a drug test or not
showing up for a meeting, for example) within their general recidivism statistics. Rearrest
statistics also include individuals who are found innocent of the charges. For these reasons, some
studies have focused on reincarceration with a new prison sentence as a more accurate recidivism
Congressional Research Service
5

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

statistic, arguing that technical violations are really an extension of an offender’s original prison
term and not a newly committed crime. Essentially, there are two competing philosophies about
what recidivism should mean.15 On the one hand are those who argue that any new contact with
the criminal justice system, no matter how minor, should be considered recidivism on the part of
an ex-offender.16 On the other hand are those who argue that recidivism should be more narrowly
defined as the commission of a new crime, resulting in a new sentence, by an ex-offender.17 What
one includes in the definition of recidivism has a substantial impact on the rate of recidivism
reported.
Regardless of what definition is used, recidivism is a difficult subject to study. Tracking
recidivism involves following the cases of individuals for a number of years and relying on state
or national-level data sets that contain inherent inaccuracies. For example, if an offender is
released in California but commits a new crime in Maine, the researchers must be able to match
those two records together to make a definitive statement about recidivism. This match is
typically done by consulting the FBI’s master database of convictions; however, as we will see
later, this database contains omissions that may affect the results of recidivism studies. A number
of studies have been conducted on this issue, and most states have calculated their own recidivism
rates. However, there is a dearth of current national-level statistics on recidivism by ex-offenders.
The two main national-level studies that have been conducted over the last 15 years are outlined
below.
Bureau of Justice Statistics 1994 Recidivism Study
One of the most comprehensive national-level recidivism study to date was conducted by the
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and dates back to 1994.18 The BJS study examined the rearrest,
reconviction, and reincarceration of prisoners from 15 states three years after their release in
1994.19 The study tracked 272,111 prisoners, or almost two-thirds of all the prisoners released
from state prisons in 1994.
After three years, the study found that over two-thirds (67.5%) of the prisoners released had been
rearrested for a new offense. Almost half (46.9%) of the prisoners had been reconvicted of a new
crime. Just over half (51.8%) of the prisoners released were back in prison either because they
had been resentenced to prison for a new crime they had committed (25.4%) or because they had
violated some technical provision of their release (26.4%).20 The BJS study therefore showed that
more than half of ex-offenders who return to prison do so because of technical violations of their
parole or probation rather than the commission of a new crime. It is important to note that the BJS
study did not include information on what percentage of ex-offenders were serving time in local

15 For an expanded discussion of the varying definitions of recidivism, refer to Allen Beck, Recidivism: A Fruit Salad
Concept in the Criminal Justice World
, Justice Concepts, available at http://www.justiceconcepts.com/recidivism.pdf.
16 See Colorado Department of Corrections, Recidivism and Cumulative Return Rates: Calendar Year Releases from
1999 through 2005
, on file with the author.
17 See Florida Department of Corrections, Recidivism Report: Inmates Released from Florida Prisons, May 2001,
http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/recidivism/2001/full.pdf.
18 Patrick A. Langan and David J. Levin, United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Recidivism
of Prisoners Released in 1994
, Report NCJ193427, June 2002. Hereafter referred to as “1994 Recidivism Study.”
19 The states included in the study were Arizona, California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan,
Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, and Virginia.
20 1994 Recidivism Study, p. 7.
Congressional Research Service
6

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

jails; however, as previously noted, local jails feature a fluid population of inmates who usually
reside there for a brief period of time and may not be convicted of the crime for which they are
being held.
Pew Recidivism Study
The Pew Center on the States (Pew), in collaboration with the Association of State Correctional
Administrators (ASCA), surveyed each state’s department of corrections in an attempt to collect a
single source of state-by-state recidivism data.21 The survey asked states to provide 36-month
recidivism rates for offenders released in 1999 and 2004.22 Thirty-three states provided data for
the 1999 release cohort and 41 states provided data for the 2004 release cohort. Pew reported that
the data allowed them to analyze recidivism trends in 33 states.
Pew found that, when only considering the states that reported data on both cohorts, the
recidivism rate for inmates released in 1999 was 45.4%, and for inmates released in 2004 it was
43.3%. The recidivism rate decreased slightly between 1999 and 2004 even though nearly 64,000
more inmates were released in 2004 than in 1999. Of the offenders in the 1999 cohort, 19.9% of
them were reincarcerated for a new crime, while 25.5% were returned to prison for a technical
violation of post-incarceration supervision. Of the offenders in the 2004 cohort, 22.3% of them
were reincarcerated for a new crime, while 21% were returned to prison for a technical violation
of post-incarceration supervision. Pew also compared reported recidivism rates for inmates
released in 1999 and 2004 from the 15 states included in the 1994 BJS recidivism study (see
above) and found that recidivism rates have remained relatively stable over time. The 1999 and
2004 recidivism rates for the states included in the 1994 BJS study (excluding California) were
39.7% and 38.5%, respectively, which is similar to the 40.1% recidivism rate calculated by BJS
(if California is excluded).23
United States Sentencing Commission Study
The United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) studied the recidivism rates of a random
sample of 6,062 offenders who were sentenced under federal sentencing guidelines in FY1992.
The recidivism information was derived from the “RAP” sheet criminal history repository
maintained by the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division, which has certain
limitations (discussed below). The USSC study examined the relationship between the offenders’
sentences and recidivism rates. The USSC developed the Criminal History Category (CHC) based
on a review of prediction measures that were popularized in a National Academy of Sciences
study in the 1980s.24 Generally, an offender’s prior criminal record will determine which CHC
they are placed in. There are six CHC levels; an offender’s placement within these levels is

21 Pew Center on the States, State of Recidivism: The Revolving Door of America’s Prisons, Washington, DC, April
2011, http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/sentencing_and_corrections/
State_Recidivism_Revolving_Door_America_Prisons%20.pdf.
22 Recidivism was defined as a return to prison, either for being convicted for a new crime or violating the terms of
post-incarceration supervision. Ibid., p. 7.
23 Pew notes that the high number of releases and rate of return for offenders from California has a significant effect on
national recidivism rates, hence California was excluded from the comparison of recidivism rate for states that were
included in both the BJS and Pew studies. Ibid., p. 12.
24 United States Sentencing Commission, A Comparison of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines Criminal History
Category and the U.S. Parole Commission Salient Factor Score
.
Congressional Research Service
7

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

determined by a points system based on their prior contacts with the criminal justice system.
Points are awarded for prior convictions, for violations of technical provisions of their judicial
supervision (e.g., bail or parole), and for violent crimes. Juvenile and special court martial
convictions are also counted. The higher the CHC, the more severe the offender’s criminal history
is.25
Generally, the study showed that an offender’s criminal history was strongly associated with the
likelihood of the offender recidivating after being released. The more prior convictions or the
more serious the nature of the offender’s crimes, the more likely the offender was to recidivate.
The study also showed that the definition of recidivism had a large impact on the resulting
statistics. For example, for the most hardened ex-offenders, general recidivism, which includes
any contact with the criminal justice system, was at 55% after two years. Over this same period,
the re-conviction rate for the most hardened ex-offenders was only 15%. This discrepancy shows
that the definition of recidivism is important; even for the most hardened ex-offenders, the
reconviction rate was relatively low compared with the general recidivism.
National Recidivism Study Limitations
The data used in the BJS, Pew and USSC studies come from official records maintained by the
states’ and the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI’s) official criminal history repositories.
These repositories understate the actual recidivism levels to some unknown extent because they
rely on local police agencies and courts to supply them with notifying documents. These
documents are not always filed by local police departments or courts, however. In addition, if the
offender provided a different name or a fraudulent identity document to police, and this
misinformation was not discovered, they would likely not be captured by the data. Lastly, even if
the criminal is correctly identified and the document is sent to the repository, the repository may
not be able to match the person identified in the document with their records. This could occur,
for example, if the document that has been submitted is filled out incorrectly or is illegible.
Moreover, as previously noted, there is some debate about what kind of outcome measure should
be included when measuring recidivism. Should recidivism statistics include any contact with the
criminal justice system by an ex-offender? Or should recidivism statistics be limited to the
commission of crimes by ex-offenders that result in new convictions or new sentences? Both the
BJS and the USSC studies showed wide differentials between general recidivism, which includes
any contact with the criminal justice system, and re-conviction rates for new crimes. The length
of the follow-up period will also play a role in the recidivism statistics that are generated.
Because of the costs and difficulties associated with studying recidivism, most studies follow ex-
offenders for two or three years. There is a dearth of information concerning what happens to ex-
offenders beyond the three-year window that is typically studied.
For all of these reasons, caution should be taken when attempting to draw conclusions about the
efficacy of policy measures based solely on recidivism statistics. When using recidivism statistics
to evaluate a program, it is important to understand exactly what is included in the definition of
recidivism. For example, consider the following hypothetical scenario: a program is evaluated
and shows significant decreases in the number of ex-offenders that are convicted of new crimes
and sentenced to new prison terms; however, the number of ex-offenders arrested for violating

25 For examples of how the CHC system works within the federal sentencing guidelines, please refer to CRS Report
RL32846, How the Federal Sentencing Guidelines Work: Two Examples, by Charles Doyle.
Congressional Research Service
8

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

their parole actually increased. Was this program successful or not? Did it make society safer or
not? This may well be an unlikely scenario, but it calls attention to the fact that recidivism may
mean different things to different people. While recidivism statistics remain the best information
available concerning whether ex-offenders come into contact with the criminal justice system
after being released from prison and what the nature of that contact is, they are but one factor to
be considered when evaluating the efficacy of a program, because of the concerns outlined above.
Importance of Considering Other Outcome Measures
While recidivism has traditionally been the most widely used metric used to determine the
effectiveness of correctional and reentry programs, it is important to note here that other outcome
measures can help determine whether an offender’s reintegration into society is succeeding.
Measures of attachment to social institutions, such as employment, involvement in community
activities, church-going, and participation in support groups, can be important bellwethers of an
offender’s transition to the community.26 For example, one study of drug court27 participants
showed that drug courts reduce drug use among their participants and that children born to drug
court participants are less likely to be born addicted to drugs.28 Given the high societal costs
associated with substance-dependent infants, for that particular program, recidivism was arguably
not the most important outcome measure that could have been considered. To give policy makers
a better idea of what happens to ex-offenders, program evaluations are best focused on the entire
universe of activities in which ex-offenders engage. A potential issue for Congress could be
whether these alternate measures of an offender reentry program’s effectiveness in fostering
reintegration within the community should be considered when deciding how best to allocate
grant funding and other government resources. A related issue could be whether reporting on
these alternate outcome measures should be required of programs receiving federal grant funding.
Lack of Current Federal Recidivism Statistics
As previously noted, the only national-level recidivism statistics concerning the reentry of
prisoners into the community are more than a decade old. These studies showed that over two-
thirds of ex-offenders had come into contact with the legal system—either through a new arrest, a
violation of the terms of their release, or a new conviction—within three years of their release.
However, there are no current national-level recidivism statistics. While a number of states have
conducted studies of their prisoners’ recidivism, the lack of national-level statistics poses a
challenge for policy makers as they consider the issue of offender reentry. Without a current,
national-level analysis of which ex-offenders are more likely to recidivate, it is difficult to target
funding to offender reentry programs that address the at-risk population. Indeed, much of the
offender reentry literature being published today continues to cite the Bureau of Justice Statistics
study from the mid-1990s when referring to recidivism. A potential issue of interest for Congress
may be whether a new, national-level recidivism study is needed to better understand the current
trends in recidivism and to better target federal funding to the ex-offenders that are most likely to
re-offend.

26 Joan Petersilla, “What Works in Prisoner Reentry? Reviewing and Questioning the Evidence,” Federal Probation,
vol. 68, no. 2, 2004, pp. 4-8. Hereafter referred to as “Questioning the Evidence.”
27 Drug court programs typically divert nonviolent offenders arrested for drug-related crimes to treatment centers as
opposed to prison.
28 Questioning the Evidence, p. 7.
Congressional Research Service
9

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

Offender Reentry: A Brief Literature Review
The vast majority of prisoners currently being detained in secure facilities will, someday, be
released into the community, and more offenders are transitioning into the community today than
ever before. Offender reentry is a complex issue that touches on a wide range of social and
governmental networks and programs. Offender reentry policies can vary significantly from state
to state, and from community to community within particular states. The policies affecting
prisoners and the kinds of programs available to them both in and out of prison depend on a
variety of factors, including the availability of funding for social programs within states and
communities and the number of private nonprofit and religious organizations operating in a given
community. The federal government plays a supporting role through the numerous grant funding
opportunities (discussed below). Complicating factors affecting how offender reentry works in a
given community can include
• the varying types of sentences handed down,
• the different kinds of release mechanisms available to judges,
• the types of programs provided in prisons by correctional systems,
• the intensity of supervision provided or required by the parole or releasing
agency,
• the family and community support available to the offender,
• the kinds of social services available in the offender’s community, and
• the status of the local economy and the offender’s ability to obtain employment.29
Offender Reentry Defined
Before we can discuss offender reentry programs, however, it is useful to comment on what
constitutes offender reentry. Some observers note that offender reentry is the natural byproduct of
incarceration, because all prisoners who are not sentenced to life in prison and who do not die in
prison will reenter the community at some point. According to this school of thought, reentry is
not a program or some kind of legal status but rather a process that almost all offenders will
undergo.30 A variant on this approach to reentry is the concept that offender reentry, “simply
defined, includes all activities and programming conducted to prepare ex-convicts to return safely
to the community and to live as law abiding citizens.”31 The basic idea here is that every activity
and process that a prisoner undergoes while in the judicial and correctional systems will have
some nexus with their reentry into the community.
Although this broad definition of reentry certainly encompasses all the activities that may
impinge on or affect a prisoner’s reentry into society, it may be a cumbersome one for the
purposes of crafting and evaluating government policies. For example, it is difficult, if not
impossible, to measure the outcome of a reentry program if one includes in the definition of

29 Richard P. Seiter and Karen R. Kadela, “Prisoner Reentry: What Works, What Does Not, and What Is Promising,”
Crime & Delinquency, vol. 49, no. 3, 2003, pp. 360-388. Hereafter referred to as “Prisoner Reentry: What Works.”
30 Questioning the Evidence, 4-5.
31 Questioning the Evidence, p. 5.
Congressional Research Service
10

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

reentry every activity that a prisoner undergoes during his time in the criminal justice system.
This has led many in the field to focus on a more narrow and thus more manageable definition of
reentry. This more narrow definition is often stated in two parts: correctional programs that focus
on the transition to the community (such as prerelease, work release, halfway houses, or other
programs specifically aiming at reentry) and programs that have initiated some form of treatment
(such as substance abuse, life skills, education, or mental health) in prison that is linked to
community programs that will continue the treatment once the prisoner has been released.32
Narrowing the definition of reentry thusly allows policy makers to focus on programs that
expressly aim to manage the transition from detention to the community.
Program Effectiveness: The “What Works” Literature
Compared with other social science fields, there has been a relative lack of rigorously designed
studies on the issue of offender reentry. Nevertheless, in recent years, there has been increasing
attention on this issue and a number of new studies have been published. This has allowed
academics to undertake some of the first broad meta-analyses33 of offender reentry studies. Some
of these studies have hewn closely to the “what works” paradigm created by University of
Maryland researchers for a National Institute of Justice report to Congress.34 This concept was
adapted to the field of offender reentry in a 2003 St. Louis University Study.35 The “what works”
literature attempts to identify programs that are effective by creating a scoring system to evaluate
studies based on whether they can be proven to have an impact. Inherent to this approach is the
need to identify program evaluations that provide evidence concerning the effect the program had
on certain outcome measures. The “what works” paradigm essentially focuses on whether studies
have accomplished the following things:
• controlled for variables in their analysis that may have been the underlying cause
of any observed connection between the program being studied and the outcome
measures being analyzed;
• determined whether there are measurement errors resulting from problems with
the study, including such things as participants being lost over time or low
response rates to interview requests; and
• calculated the statistical power of the analysis to detect the program’s effects on
outcome measures. Included in this category are things such as sample size and
the base rate of crime in the community.36
The “what works” model uses these core criteria to place studies into five distinct categories, with
category 5 being the most scientifically rigorous, and thus considered most effective, studies. The
model then uses this criteria to identify programs that, based on the evidence considered, have
been proven to work, programs that are promising, and programs that do not work.

32 Prisoner Reentry: What Works, p. 370.
33 Meta-analyses are a type of systematic review of studies that allow researchers to draw conclusions across a wide
range of studies by using statistical methods to derive quantitative results from the analysis of multiple sources of
quantitative evidence.
34 Lawrence W. Sherman, Denise Gottfredson, Doris MacKenzie, John Eck, Peter Reuter, and Shawn Bushway,
Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising, National Institute of Justice, 1997.
35 Offender Reentry: What Works.
36 Offender Reentry: What Works, pp. 370-373.
Congressional Research Service
11

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

Following is a brief discussion of the types of offender reentry programs that have been judged to
be effective in the “what works” literature, as well as in other studies. It is important to note here
that just because a program has been reported to work in one location, or for a certain population,
does not necessarily mean that it can be just as effective in other locations or among other
populations. A number of factors can impinge on a program’s effectiveness in any given location.
For example, while knowing that a program has worked in the past can provide a model or
blueprint to guide policy practitioners in other locations, how a program is implemented is just as
important to its ultimate success as the underlying model that it is based on. The most effective
model program can be compromised if it is not implemented properly. In addition, geographic,
demographic, and other differences between locations can affect whether a program that
succeeded in one place succeeds in another. Nevertheless, knowing that a program has worked in
the past is of use to policy makers as they consider where to allocate funding and other resources.
Employment
There are a number of studies that demonstrate that employment is a fundamental component of
the reentry process, and that ex-offenders who are able to find stable employment are much more
likely to succeed in their rehabilitation than those who cannot find work.37 Several vocational and
work programs were found to effectively reduce recidivism and improve the job-readiness of ex-
offenders by the “what works” review.38
Drug Treatment
Drug rehabilitation and treatment have also been found to be effective by a number of different
studies, including the “what works” literature. These studies showed that, for recidivism and
drug-use relapse, drug treatment can significantly improve outcome measures. In general,
programs that provide intensive treatment in prison, combined and integrated with aftercare
programs, have been shown to be effective in reducing recidivism and substance abuse among
their participants—especially for offenders with serious crime and substance abuse histories.39
Halfway House Programs
A number of programs that provide transitional housing for ex-offenders as they begin their
transition into the community have been found to be effective. Offenders participating in halfway
house programs were found to commit fewer and less severe offenses than those who did not
participate. Participants also performed better on a range of other outcome measures, such as
finding and holding a job, being self-supporting, and participating in self-improvement programs;
however, these results were not statistically significant.40

37 See, for example, Shawn Bushway and Peter Reuter, “Labor Markets and Crime Risk Factors,” in Preventing Crime:
What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising. A Report to the United States Congress
, the National Institute of
Justice, 1997, Chapter 6. Jeremy Travis, But They All Come Back: Facing the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry, The
Urban Institute Press, 2005.
38 Prisoner Reentry: What Works, pp. 373-374.
39 Prisoner Reentry: What Works, p. 374.
40 Prisoner Reentry: What Works, p. 378. A study’s statistical significance is typically interpreted as a level of
confidence (usually expressed as a probability, e.g., 95%) that an estimated impact is not merely the result of random
variation, indicating that at least some of the measured impact may, with substantial confidence (e.g., 95% confidence),
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
12

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

Other Kinds of Programs
The “what works” review concluded that other programs were either not effective or had not been
studied enough for firm conclusions to be drawn. Education programs, for example, were found
to raise educational achievement scores but not to reduce recidivism. Pre-release programs and
programs focusing on violent offenders and sex offenders showed some evidence that they were
effective in reducing recidivism, but few of these kinds of studies made it through the selection
process. This precluded any firm conclusions from being drawn about these kinds of programs
and pointed to the need for more evaluations.41
Limitations of the “What Works” Literature
One of the main limitations associated with the “what works” literature is the dearth of studies
that meet its rigorous requirements. For example, the offender reentry study cited above was only
able to identify 32 studies that met its selection criteria. Only 19 of these program evaluations
contained a comparison, or control, group, and of these, only 2 were randomized control trials.42
This has led some to question whether the programs identified to work by this literature review
are, in fact, effective.43 Moreover, most of the studies identified by the “what works” literature
evaluate program effectiveness based almost entirely on recidivism. As previously noted, some
believe other outcome measures may be just as important in deciding whether a program has been
effective in reintegrating ex-offenders into their communities. Lastly, evaluations that incorporate
random assignment and provide statistically rigorous results are, by and large, expensive. This
means that policy makers are often confronted with hard decisions concerning whether to fund
additional services or evaluations of existing programs.
Conclusions
After reviewing the available literature, some patterns appear to emerge. Many of the programs
that have been proven to be effective share some of the same attributes, regardless of whether
they focus on vocational training, substance abuse prevention, mental health services, or
alternative housing. The attributes shared by most of these programs include the following:
• they start during institutional placement, but take place mostly in the community;
• they are intensive in nature, lasting typically at least six months;
• they focus services on individuals determined to be at high risk of recidivating
through the use of risk-assessment classifications; and

(...continued)
be attributed to the treatment as a cause.
41 Prisoner Reentry: What Works, pp. 376-379.
42 For more information about the use of randomized control trials to evaluate government programs, refer to CRS
Report RL33301, Congress and Program Evaluation: An Overview of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) and
Related Issues
, by Clinton T. Brass, Erin D. Williams, and Blas Nuñez-Neto.
43 Questioning the Evidence, p. 7.
Congressional Research Service
13

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

• if they are treatment programs, they use cognitive-behavioral treatment
techniques, matching particular therapists and programs to the specific learning
characteristics of the offenders.44
Federal Offender Reentry Programs
Following is a brief description of the main federal programs that have been used to help state
and local entities to fund activities relating to the reintegration of ex-offenders into local
communities. It is important to note that some of these programs may no longer be receiving
funding; these programs are identified below. Other programs that are currently funded may not
provide funding for offender reentry purposes every fiscal year. Nevertheless, these programs
have been included to provide a comprehensive look at the universe of federal resources that
could be used for offender reentry purposes.
Offender Reentry Programs at the Department of Justice (DOJ)
The first reentry-specific program at the DOJ was the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry
Initiative (SVORI), which was coordinated by the Office of Justice Programs (OJP). The SVORI
was a federal offender reentry pilot program for adult offenders that focused on coordinating the
way federal agencies distribute offender reentry funding. The main federal agencies involved
were the Departments of Justice, Labor, Education, and Housing and Urban Development. As part
of SVORI, their objective was to help state and local agencies navigate the wide array of existing
state formula and block grants and to assist the states and communities to leverage those
resources to create comprehensive offender reentry programs. The program distributed $110
million to 69 grantees and concluded in FY2005.
An evaluation of SVORI programs was released in December 2009.45 The evaluation, among
other things, evaluated the post-release outcomes of participants in 16 programs (12 adult and 4
juvenile) in 14 states.46 The evaluation found that there was little difference in the reported
reentry programming needs between offenders who participated in SVORI programs and those
who did not participate. Inmates who participated in SVORI programs were more likely to
receive reentry programming and services than those who did not participate, but not all SVORI
program participants received programming or services. The researchers also found that the
provision of services for program participants was below the expressed need for services.
Moreover, the provision of services decreased after the inmates were released from confinement.
The researchers found that adults who participated in the SVORI program were moderately more
likely than non-participants to find housing and employment, not use drugs, and self-report less
criminal behavior. However, improvement on these measures (i.e., housing, employment, drug
use, and criminal behavior) did not translate into lower levels of reincarceration. Juvenile males

44 Questioning the Evidence, pp. 6-7.
45 Pamela K. Lattimore and Christy A. Visher, The Multi-site Evaluation of SVORI: Summary and Synthesis, RTI
International, December 2009, http://svori.rti.org/documents/reports/SVORI_Summary_Synthesis_FINAL.pdf.
46 The evaluation included a pre-release interview (conducted approximately 30 day before being released) with both
SVORI and non-SVORI participants. Follow-up interviews were conducted 3, 9, and 15 months after release. In
addition, oral swab drug tests were conducted during the 3 and 15 month interviews. Recidivism data was collected
from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC) and state correctional and
juvenile justice agencies. Ibid., p. ES-7.
Congressional Research Service
14

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

who participated in SVORI programs were more likely than non-participants to have a job with
benefits 15 months after being released, but there was no significant difference between program
participants and non-participants in terms of substance abuse, physical health, mental health, or
recidivism.
The Prisoner Reentry Initiative (PRI) was the successor to the SVORI program. According to
OJP, the PRI provided funding for model offender reentry programs that focused on providing
services and assistance during the three phases of offender reentry: at detention facilities, just
prior to and after the offender’s release, and during an ex-offender’s long-term transition to the
community. Congress discontinued funding the PRI after FY2008.
From FY2001 to FY2003, Congress appropriated funding for the DOJ portion of the SVORI
under the Community Oriented Policing Services account in the annual Commerce, Justice,
Science, and Related Agencies appropriations act. Appropriations were provided during these
fiscal years even though they were not authorized. As a part of the 21st Century Department of
Justice Reauthorization Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-273), Congress authorized appropriations for an
adult and juvenile offender reentry demonstration program. The act originally authorized
appropriations of $15.0 million for FY2003, $15.5 million for FY2004, and $16.0 million for
FY2005. For FY2004 to FY2008, Congress appropriated funding for the SVORI and the PRI
pursuant to the authorization for the adult and juvenile offender reentry demonstration program.
The Second Chance Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-199)47 reauthorized and modified the scope of the adult
and juvenile offender reentry demonstration program. The act replaced the previous four purpose
areas eligible for funding with new purpose areas spanning every phase of the offender reentry
process. Applicants for these grants are subject to a number of requirements, including submitting
a reentry strategic plan with their application, describing the long-term strategy, and providing a
detailed implementation schedule, among other things. The act requires that states and localities
match 50% of the federal funds provided; up to half of this state match (or 25% of the overall
total funding) can be composed of in-kind contributions. The act also created some new
demonstration grant programs, including
• grants for state and local reentry courts;
• grants for drug treatment diversion programs;
• grants to expand substance-abuse programs for prisoners and ex-offenders; and
• grants to expand the use of career training programs and mentoring programs.
Since FY2009, funding DOJ for reentry programs has been appropriated pursuant to the grant
programs authorized by the Second Chance Act.
Offender Reentry Programs at Other Federal Agencies
As previously mentioned, many federal departments provide funding through a wide array of
programs and block grants, which can be used by states for offender reentry. The following list is
not meant to be an exhaustive one, but it does capture many programs run by other departments
that can be used to support state offender reentry initiatives.

47 A more detailed description of the Second Chance Act can be found in the Appendix A.
Congressional Research Service
15

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

The Department of Labor (DOL)
The Workforce Investment Act48 (WIA) of 1998 (P.L. 105-220) authorized a nationwide system
of workforce development programs, America’s Workforce Network, that provides information
and services to connect youths and adults with employers.49 These programs, which can be used
by ex-offenders, provide services such as skills-training and job-placement. DOL also instituted a
Young Offender Reentry Demonstration Grant Program, which provides funds to communities for
offender reentry programs for offenders aged 14 to 21 who are already in the criminal justice
system or are considered high-risk. This program focuses on job-training, education, substance-
abuse treatment, mental health care, housing assistance, and family support services.
In addition, DOL maintains two programs that provide incentives for companies to hire ex-
offenders. The Work Opportunity Tax Credits program50 provides up to $2,400 in tax credits to
companies for every former offender they hire,51 and the Federal Bonding Program allows
companies who cannot obtain bonding or insurance from their own providers to bond ex-
offenders for up to $25,000 for up to six months.52
The Department of Education (DOE)
A variety of DOE programs can be used by states to help fund or provide technical support for
offender reentry programs that focus on education. The Office of Vocational and Adult Education
provides several different programs for offender reentry. The Lifeskills for State and Local
Inmates Program provides funding for demonstration projects to reduce recidivism through
educational services before inmates are discharged into the community.53 The Grants to States for
Workplace and Community Transition Training for Incarcerated Youth Offenders funds
postsecondary education and vocational training for people under the age of 25 from five years
before their release to one year post-release.54 Title II of the Workforce Investment Act, Adult
Education and Family Literacy, also authorized funding to be appropriated for basic skills
instruction; up to 10% of the funds can be used for institutionalized offenders or for ex-offenders
in community programs. In addition, the Perkins State Grant Program allows states to use up to
1% of their funds to serve offenders in institutions.55

48 U.S. Department of Labor, Employment & Training Administration, “Serious and Violent Offender Reentry
Initiative Appendices,” http://www.doleta.gov/grants/sga/reentry_app.cfm, hereinafter “Serious and Violent Offender
Reentry Initiative Appendices.”
49 For more information about the Workforce Investment Act, please refer to CRS Report RL33687, The Workforce
Investment Act (WIA): Program-by-Program Overview and Funding of Title I Training Programs
, by David H.
Bradley.
50 For more information about the Work Opportunity Tax Credits Program, please refer to CRS Report RL30089, The
Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC)
, by Christine Scott.
51 U.S. Department of Labor, Employment & Training Administration, “Work Opportunity Tax Credit” available at
http://www.doleta.gov/business/Incentives/opptax/.
52 U.S. Department of Labor, Employment & Training Administration, “Federal Bonding Program,”
http://www.bonds4jobs.com/program-background.html.
53 U.S. Department of Education, “Life Skills for State and Local Prisoners Program,” http://www.ed.gov/programs/
lifeskills/index.html.
54 U.S. Department of Education, “Guide to U.S. Department of Education Programs, FY2007,” p. 38,
http://www.ed.gov/programs/gtep/gtep.pdf.
55 “Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative Appendices”
Congressional Research Service
16

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
HUD funds a variety of programs that help states and local governments to support housing
programs. The Community Development Block Grant Program aims to assist states in developing
viable urban communities. Funds are allocated by formula to the states, and communities and
grantees have significant discretion concerning how to allocate their federal funding—including
using some funds to provide housing for ex-offenders.56
The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)
DHHS provides funding for a multitude of programs that can be used to help offender reentry
programs through the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Agency57 (SAMHSA) and the
Office of Community Services. These programs include the Recovery Community Support
Program, which targets people and families recovering from drug abuse and addiction, and
several block grant programs. SAMHSA also funds a program that specifically targets offender
reentry known as the Young Offender Reentry Program (YORP). The YORP provides funding for
state, tribal, and local governments, as well as community based nonprofit organizations, to
expand substance abuse treatment and supervision programs for juvenile and young adult
offenders re-entering the community.58 Funds for DHHS programs may be used to provide
substance abuse or mental health services for offenders on parole or probation. However, DHHS
funds may not be used to provide services to incarcerated offenders.59
Coordination Between Federal Agencies
There are a number of entities that bring together offender reentry professionals from state and
local governments, nonprofit organizations, and academic institutions, including the Reentry
Policy Council founded by the Council of State Governments and the Reentry Roundtable hosted
by the Urban Institute. Both of these organizations attempt to bolster information sharing about
best practices and funding opportunities and coordination between the various state and local
agencies and stake-holders within the offender reentry field.
The DOJ has started an interagency Reentry Council to coordinate federal reentry efforts and
advance effective reentry policies. The first meeting of the council was held in January 2011, and
one will be held every six months. The purpose of the council is “to bring together numerous
federal agencies to make communities safer, assist those returning from prison and jail in
becoming productive, tax-paying citizens, and save taxpayer dollars by lowering the direct and
collateral costs of incarceration.”60 The council includes representatives from the following
agencies and offices:

56 Ibid.
57 For more information about SAMHSA, see CRS Report R41477, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration (SAMHSA): Agency Overview and Reauthorization Issues
, by C. Stephen Redhead.
58 Testimony of Senior Policy Advisor to the Administrator Cheri Nolan, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, before the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee
on Corrections and Rehabilitation, Thursday, September 21, 2006.
59 “Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative Appendices.”
60 National Reentry Resource Center, Federal Interagency Reentry Council, http://csgjusticecenter.org/nrrc/projects/
firc/.
Congressional Research Service
17

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

• Department of Justice,
• Department of the Interior,
• Department of Agriculture,
• Department of Labor,
• Department of Health and Human Services,
• Department of Housing and Urban Development,
• Department of Education,
• Department of Veterans Affairs,
• Office of National Drug Control Policy,
• Social Security Administration,
• Domestic Policy Council,
• Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
• White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships,
• Office of Personnel Management,
• Office of Management and Budget,
• Internal Revenue Service,
• Federal Trade Commission,
• Interagency Council on Homelessness, and
• Small Business Administration.
Conclusion
Over the past two and a half decades, the prison population and the number of ex-offenders being
released into the community have been increasing. The increasing number of ex-offenders
entering the community has put pressure on public policy makers to provide treatments and
services that will smooth the reintegration process while reducing recidivism. When deciding
what programs to fund, policy makers often focus on reducing recidivism. The focus on reducing
recidivism, however, is complicated by the fact that there are different definitions of recidivism.
For example, the last major national-level study showed that two-thirds of ex-offenders came into
contact with the legal system and that about half were back in prison within three years of their
release. However, only a quarter of the ex-offenders ended up in prison for having committed
new crimes; another quarter were back in prison for technical violations of their release (such as
failing a drug test). Whether technical violations should be considered a measure of recidivism or
whether recidivism should be confined to the commission of new crimes has engendered much
debate within the criminal justice field.
While the emphasis on reducing recidivism is important, programs can also be evaluated based on
other outcome measures such as their ability to connect ex-offenders with jobs, services, and
institutions in their communities. The best available research has shown that there are a number
Congressional Research Service
18

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

of services that can help ex-offenders reconnect with their communities and lower recidivism,
including programs focusing on providing vocational training, substance abuse prevention,
mental health services, and alternative housing. The reportedly most successful programs focus
on high-risk offenders, are intensive in nature, begin during institutional placement, and take
place mostly in the community. However, a relative lack of scientifically rigorous research has
made it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about which programs are most effective.
As Congress considers this issue, a number of policy issues may be assessed, including whether
the current federal grant programs are adequate or whether new programs should be created,
whether there is a need for more current national-level recidivism data, whether enough
coordination of the many programs that may be used to help ex-offenders is occurring within the
federal government, whether more evaluations of offender reentry programs are needed, and
whether funding will be appropriated for the programs and activities that were authorized by the
Second Chance Act.
Congressional Research Service
19

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

Appendix A. Section-by-Section Comparison of the
Second Chance Act

The Second Chance Act, P.L. 110-199, was passed by the House on November 13, 2007, and by
the Senate on March 11, 2008. The act was signed into law on April 9, 2008. Following is a
section-by-section analysis of the act’s provisions.
Amendments to Current Offender Reentry Grant Program (§101)
The Second Chance Act reauthorized and expanded the adult and juvenile offender state and local
offender reentry demonstration projects codified at 42 U.S.C. 3797w(b-c). The act replaced the
four current purpose areas eligible for funding with seven broad purpose areas:
• educational, literacy, vocational, and job placement services;
• substance abuse treatment and services, including programs that start in
placement and continue through the community;
• programs that provide comprehensive supervision and offer services in the
community, including programs that provide housing assistance and mental and
physical health services;
• programs that focus on family integration during and after placement for both
offenders and their families;
• mentoring programs that start in placement and continue into the community;
• programs that provide victim-appropriate services, including those that promote
the timely payment of restitution by offenders and those that offer services (such
as security or counseling) to victims when offenders are released; and
• programs that protect communities from dangerous offenders, including
developing and implementing the use of risk assessment tools to determine when
offenders should be released from prison.
Applicants for these grants are subjected to a number of requirements, including submitting a
reentry strategic plan with their application, describing the long-term strategy, providing a
detailed implementation schedule, identifying the local government’s role in the plan, and
describing the “evidence based methodology and outcome measures” that are used to evaluate the
programs and “provide valid measures” of the program’s impact.
The act allows the Attorney General (AG) to make grants for these programs if the applications
received meet the following conditions:
• they are explicitly supported by the chief executive of the unit of government
applying for the funding;
• they extensively discuss the role that the various law enforcement entities
involved in the reentry process will have in the program;
Congressional Research Service
20

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

• they provide extensive evidence of collaboration among the state and local
health, housing, child welfare, education, substance abuse, victims services,
employment, and law enforcement agencies;
• they provide a plan for analyzing any statutory, regulatory, or other hurdles that
may exist to reintegrating offenders into the community; and
• they include a reentry taskforce as described below to carry out the activities
funded under the grant.
The act requires applicants to develop a comprehensive strategic reentry plan that contains
measurable five-year performance outcomes, with the goal of reducing recidivism by 50% over
this period. As a condition of funding, applicants are also required to create offender reentry
taskforces that would integrate the prime offender reentry stake-holders in their communities in
order to pool resources, facilitate data-collection, and reduce recidivism. Grantees are also
required to submit annual reports to DOJ that identify the specific progress made toward
achieving their strategic performance outcomes, and may be eligible for future grants if they
demonstrate adequate progress towards reducing recidivism by 10% over a two-year period.
In awarding grants under this program, the AG is directed to prioritize applications that
• focus on geographic areas with a disproportionate population of ex-offenders;
• include input from nonprofit organizations, consultation with victims and ex-
offenders, and coordinate with families;
• demonstrate effective case management in order to provide comprehensive and
continuous services during reentry;
• review the adjudications process for parole violations in the applicant’s criminal
justice system;
• provide for an independent evaluation of the program, including, to the extent
practicable, the use of random assignment; and
• target high risk offenders through the use of validated assessment tools.
Additionally, the act establishes a National Adult and Juvenile Offender Reentry Resource Center
by authorizing the AG to make a grant available to an eligible organization. The selected
organization are directed to provide education, training, and technical assistance to states and
other governments in order to collect and disseminate data and best practices in offender reentry,
including the use of evaluation tools and other measures to assess and document performance. Up
to 4% of the authorized level of funding can be used to establish and run this center.
The act authorizes $55 million in both FY2009 and FY2010 for these programs and limits
funding for technical assistance and training to between 2% and 3% of the overall total
appropriated. The total federal share of funding for these grants is limited to 50%; however, up to
50% of the state and local matching funds (i.e., 25% of the overall grant) could be fulfilled
through in-kind contributions of goods or services.
Congressional Research Service
21

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

Improvement of the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment for
State Offenders Program (§102)

This provision requires states receiving grants under the residential substance abuse treatment
program (42 U.S.C. 3796ff) to ensure that individuals participating in these programs receive
aftercare services, including a full continuum of support services. The act defines residential
substance abuse treatment programs as a course of comprehensive individual and group substance
abuse services lasting at least six months in residential treatment facilities that are set apart from
the general population of a prison or jail. The act also requires the AG to study the use and
effectiveness of the funds used to provide the required aftercare services.
Definition of Violent Offender for Drug Court Program (§103)
The act modifies the government’s current drug court grant program, restricting the current
definition of “violent offender” to individuals charged with or convicted for certain offenses that
are punishable by a sentence of longer than one year (prior there was no minimum sentence
length).61 The act requires all grantees under this program to adhere to this definition of “violent
offender” within three years of the enactment of the act (i.e., April 9, 2011), and requires the
secretary to publish regulations to this effect within 90 days of enactment. Any drug court not
adhering to this definition by April 9, 2011, would see their grant allocations reduced.
New Offender Reentry Grant Programs
Subtitle B creates a number of new targeted grant programs within the Department of Justice
(DOJ) relating to the reintegration of offenders into the community.
State and Local Reentry Courts (§111)
This provision creates a new grant program within DOJ to fund reentry courts. Subject to the
availability of appropriations, grants up to $500,000 are made available for state and local adult
and juvenile court systems in order to establish and maintain reentry courts. These courts will be
tasked with monitoring juvenile and adult offenders reentering into the community and providing
them with a coordinated and comprehensive array of services, including housing assistance,
education, job training, health services, and substance abuse treatment. In order to be eligible for
funding, applicants have to demonstrate the need for their program; create a long-term strategy
and detailed implementation plan; identify the government and community entities that would be
coordinated by the project; and describe the methodology and outcome measures that would be
used to evaluate the program. Additionally, applicants are required to submit annual reports to
DOJ including a summary of the activities carried out with the grant and an assessment of
whether these activities are meeting the needs identified in the grant application. The act
authorizes $10 million for this program in FY2009 and FY2010. The total federal share of

61 In order to be considered a “violent offender,” an individual has to have committed this crime while in possession of
a firearm or dangerous weapon, the crime has to have resulted in the death or serious bodily injury of a person, force
had to have been used against someone’s person, or the offender had 1 or more prior convictions for a felony crime of
violence involving the use or attempted use of force against a person with the intent to cause death or serious bodily
harm. See 42 U.S.C. 3797 u-2(a)(1).
Congressional Research Service
22

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

funding for these grants is limited to 50%; however, up to 50% of the state and local matching
funds (i.e., 25% of the overall grant) could be fulfilled through in-kind contributions of goods or
services.
Drug Treatment Alternative to Prison Programs (§112)
This provision creates a new grant program for state and local prosecutors to fund the
development, implementation, and expansion of drug treatment programs that are alternatives to
imprisonment. The programs require eligible offenders, after having received the consent of the
prosecutor, to participate in comprehensive drug treatment programs in lieu of imprisonment.
Criminal charges would be dismissed upon completion of the program. Offenders failing to
successfully complete their treatment programs would serve their original sentence. In order to be
eligible for these programs, the offender in question could not have had any prior felony use of
force convictions or have been charged with or convicted of an offense involving a firearm, a
dangerous weapon, or the use of force against another individual. The act authorizes $10 million
for this program in FY2009 and FY2010. The total federal share of funding for these grants is
limited to 50%; however, up to 50% of the state and local matching funds (i.e., 25% of the overall
grant) could be fulfilled through in-kind contributions of goods or services.
Family Substance Abuse Treatment Alternatives to
Incarceration Grants (§113)

This provision creates a new grant program to develop, implement, and expand the use of family-
based substance abuse treatment programs as alternatives to incarceration for non-violent parent
drug offenders. Among other things, the treatment is required to be clinically appropriate,
comprehensive, and long-term and would be provided in a residential setting rather than an
outpatient or a hospital setting. The program is required to include the implementation of
graduated sanctions applied on the basis of the offender’s accountability throughout the course of
the program and the development of reentry plans for offenders. Offenders failing to complete the
program are required to complete the sentence for the underlying crime involved. Grantees are
required to submit annual reports to DOJ detailing the effectiveness of their programs using
evidence-based data. Prison-based programs are required to locate their programs in an area
separate from the general population, to create and support treatment plans for incarcerated
parents, and to ensure continuity of care if participating offenders are transferred to a different
facility. The act authorizes $10 million in FY2009 and in FY2010 for these grants; not less than
5% of this total is to be allocated to Indian Tribes.
Grants to Evaluate and Improve Educational Methods at Prisons,
Jails, and Juvenile Facilities (§114)

This program authorizes the AG, subject to the availability of appropriations, to make grants to
evaluate, identify, and improve programs that focus on providing educational and vocational
programs for offenders by identifying and implementing best practices. Grantees are required to
submit reports within 90 days of the last day of the final fiscal year of a grant detailing the
progress that they have made. The act authorizes appropriations of $5 million for this program in
FY2009 and FY2010.
Congressional Research Service
23

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

Technology Careers Training Demonstration Grants
The act authorizes the AG to make grants to states, units of local governments, territories, and
Indian Tribes to provide technology career training for prisoners. Grants may be awarded for
programs that establish technology careers training programs for offenders during the three-year
period prior to their release. Access to the Internet during the program will be restricted to ensure
public safety. Grantees must submit a report to DOJ describing and assessing the program each
fiscal year. The act authorizes $10 million for this program in FY2009 and FY2010.
New Drug-Treatment and Mentoring Grant Programs
Title II of P.L. 110-199 authorizes a series of new grant programs for drug-treatment and
mentoring purposes. Subtitle A (§201) focuses on drug treatment programs, Subtitles B and C
(§§211-214) focus on training and mentoring programs, and Subtitle C (§231) would create a
federal offender reentry program at the Bureau of Prisons.
Offender Reentry Substance Abuse and Criminal Justice
Collaboration Program (§201)

The act authorizes the AG to make grants to states, units of local governments, territories, and
Indian Tribes in order to improve drug treatment programs in prisons and reduce the use of
alcohol and other drugs by long-term abusers under correctional supervision. Grants may be used
to continue or improve existing drug treatment programs, develop and implement programs for
long-term substance abusers, provide addiction recovery support services, and establish
pharmacological drug treatment services as part of any drug treatment program offered to
prisoners.62 Grant applicants are required to identify the entities that will be involved in providing
the treatment, certify that this treatment has been developed in consultation with the Single State
Authority for Substance Abuse,63 certify that the treatment will be clinically appropriate and will
provide comprehensive treatment, and describe how evidence-based strategies have been
incorporated into the program, including the collection and analysis of data. The AG is required
to submit a report to Congress detailing best practices relating to substance abuse treatment in
prison and comprehensive treatment of long-term substance abusers by September 30, 2009.
Another report on the drug treatment programs funded through this grant program is required by
September 30, 2010. The act authorizes appropriations of $15 million for this program in both
FY2009 and FY2010.
Mentoring Grants to Nonprofit Organizations (§211)
This provision would create a new grant program to provide mentoring and other transitional
services for offenders being released into the community. Funding could be used for mentoring
programs both in placement and during reentry, programs providing transition services during

62 Pharmacological drug treatment involves using drugs and medications in the treatment of substance abuse. See
Clayton Mosher, Scott Akins, and Chad Smith, “Pharmacological Drug Treatment” Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Royal York, Toronto. 2008-04-21.
63 States would be required to identify an entity that would be the single State administrative authority responsible for
planning, developing, implementing, monitoring, regulating, and evaluating substance abuse services within the State.
Congressional Research Service
24

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

reentry, and programs providing training for “offender and victims issues.” Priority would be
given to applicants providing for the evaluation of their programs, using randomized control trials
to the maximum extent feasible. Applicants would be required to identify and report on specific
outcome performance measures related to the overall goal of reducing recidivism. The bills would
authorize $15 million in FY2009 and in FY2010 for these grants.
Responsible Reintegration of Offenders (§212)
The act authorizes the Secretary of Labor to make grants to nonprofit organizations to provide a
wide array of mentoring, job training and job placement services, and other comprehensive
transitional services. Grants may not be used to provide substance abuse treatment, mental health
treatment, or housing services; however, grants can be used to coordinate with other entities
providing these services. Applications for the program must identify the specific eligible area that
will be served and the need for support in this area and describe the services that will be provided,
the partnerships that have been established with the criminal justice system and housing
authorities, and how other sources of funding will be leveraged to provide support services. In
order to be eligible for funding, programs must be located in urbanized areas or clusters (as
determined by the Bureau of the Census) that have a large number of prisoners returning to the
community and high recidivism rates (however, no definitions for a large number of returning
prisoners or high recidivism rates are provided). To be eligible for the program, offenders would
be at least 18 years old, have no prior adult convictions or convictions for violent or sex-related
offenses, and have been released from prison no more than 180 days before they begin
participating in the grant program.64 Not more than 15% of the grant may be used to pay for
administrative costs. The act authorizes $20 million in appropriations for the Secretary of Labor
to carry out this section in both FY2009 and FY2010; up to 4% of the appropriation may be used
to provide technical assistance.
Bureau of Prisons Policies on Mentoring Contacts (§213)
This provision directs the Director of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) at DOJ to adopt and
implement a policy by July 9, 2009, to ensure that mentors working with incarcerated offenders
are permitted to continue providing their services to the offender after their release from prison.
The Director is required to submit a report to Congress concerning this policy’s implementation
by September 20, 2009.
Bureau of Prisons Policies on Chapel Library Material (§214)
The Director of the BOP is required to discontinue the Standardized Chapel Library project, or
any other project that compiles, lists, or restricts prisoner access to materials provided by chapel
libraries by May 9, 2008. Exceptions are made for materials that incite, promote, or suggest
violence and materials prohibited by law.

64 Grantees may exempt 10% of their clients from this 180-day requirement.
Congressional Research Service
25

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

Federal Prisoner Reentry Program (§231)
The act establishes a prisoner reentry program within the BOP. BOP is required to create a federal
prisoner reentry strategy that will
• assess each prisoner’s skill level at the beginning of their prison term (including
academic, vocational, health, cognitive, interpersonal, daily living, and other
related skills);
• create a skills development plan for prisoners to be carried out during their term
of imprisonment;
• determine program assignments for prisoners based on the needs identified by the
assessment;
• give priority to the reentry needs of high-risk populations, including sex-
offenders, career criminals, and prisoners with mental health problems;
• coordinate and collaborate with other criminal justice, community-based, and
faith-based organizations;
• collect information about a prisoner’s family relationships and parental
responsibilities; and
• provide incentives for prisoners to participate in skills development programs.
Incentives for prisoners to participate in skills development programs include allowing offenders
to spend the maximum amount of time in community confinement facilities. Additionally, BOP is
required to assist offenders in obtaining identification prior to their release.
The act modifies current law to include a number of new duties for the Director of BOP. These
new duties include the establishment of prerelease planning procedures for all federal offenders
that help prisoners apply for federal and state benefits prior to their release, and the establishment
of reentry planning procedures to provide federal offenders with information in a number of
reentry-related areas. BOP is required to establish and implement a system that will allow it to
quantitatively track progress in responding to the reentry needs of its inmates and to provide an
annual report to the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary concerning its progress. An
annual report is also required containing recidivism statistics for federal prisoners, including
information concerning the relative recidivism rates of offenders participating in major inmate
programs. After the initial report establishes a baseline recidivism rate for BOP ex-offenders, the
act establishes 5- and 10-year goals of 2% and 5% reductions in this rate, respectively.
BOP is further required to ensure that the United States Probation and Pretrial Services System
has medical information for inmates scheduled for release in order to create supervision plans that
address the medical and mental health care needs of ex-offenders, and to ensure that each prisoner
in community confinement has access to medical and mental health care.
In addition to the offender reentry program established above, the act also establishes two new
programs within BOP:
• A pilot program within BOP to determine the effectiveness of allowing certain
elderly, non-violent offenders to serve the remainder of their sentences on home
detention. In order to be eligible for this program, offenders would have to be 65
Congressional Research Service
26

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

years old or older and have never been convicted of a violent or sex-related crime
or given a life-sentence, among other things.
• A program to provide satellite tracking of certain high-risk individuals after their
release from prison, in conjunction with the use of graduated sanctions, the
provision of reentry related services, and the involvement the offender’s family, a
victim advocate, and the victim. The act authorizes $5 million for this purpose in
FY2009 and in FY2010.
Offender Reentry Research (§241)
The act allows, but does not direct, the National Institute of Justice to conduct research into
offender reentry. This research may include a study identifying the number and characteristics of
children with incarcerated parents and their likelihood of engaging in criminal activity, a study
identifying mechanisms to compare recidivism rates between states, and a study on the
characteristics of individuals released from prison who do not recidivate.
The act also allows, but does not direct, the Bureau of Justice Statistics to conduct research on
offender reentry. This research may include an analysis of the populations that present unique
reentry challenges, studies to determine the characteristics of individuals who return to prison
(including which individuals pose the highest risk to the community), annual reports on the
profile of the population leaving detention and entering the community, a national recidivism
study every three years, and a study of post incarceration supervision (e.g., parole) violations.
Grants to Study Post-Incarceration Supervision Violations (§242)
This provision creates a new grant program to fund state studies aimed at improving data-
collection on offenders who have their post-incarceration supervision revoked in order to better
identify which individuals pose the greatest risk to the community. In order to receive funding,
states have to certify that their program would collect “comprehensive and reliable data” and have
to provide this data to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Addressing the Needs of Children of Incarcerated Parents (§243)
This provision directs the AG to collect data and develop best practices concerning the
communication and coordination between state corrections and child welfare agencies, especially
as they relate to the safety and support of children of incarcerated parents. The best practices
developed should include policies, procedures, and programs that could be used to safeguard the
parent-child bond during incarceration and assist incarcerated parents in planning for the future
and well-being of their children.
Study of Effectiveness of Depot Naltrexone for Heroin Addiction
(§244)

The act authorizes the AG, acting through the National Institute of Justice, to make grants to
public and private research entities to evaluate the effectiveness of depot naltrexone for the
treatment of heroin addiction. In order to be eligible for funding, research entities must
demonstrate that they conduct research in a public or private institution of higher education, that
Congressional Research Service
27

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

they plan to work with parole or probation officers for offenders under court supervision, and that
they will use randomized control trials to evaluate their programs. Grantees are required to submit
reports to DOJ describing and assessing the uses of their grant.
Authorization of Appropriations for Research (§245)
The act authorizes $10 million in both FY2009 and FY2010 to carry out the research programs
authorized by §§241-244.
Clarification of Authority to Place Prisoner in Community
Corrections (§251)

This provision would require the Director of the BOP to ensure, to the extent practicable, that
prisoners within the federal correctional system spend up to a year at the end of their sentence
focusing on their reentry into the community. As part of this practice, BOP would be authorized
to transfer offenders to community correctional facilities or to home confinement (for the shorter
of the last 10% or six months of their sentence). The provision would also give BOP the
discretion to disregard a court’s order that an offender serve part of his sentence in a community
correctional facility.
Residential Drug Abuse Program in Federal Prisons (§252)
The act replaces the current definition of a residential drug abuse program with language defining
such a program as a course of individual and group activities and treatment lasting at least six
months in residential treatment facilities that are set apart from the general prison population. The
act also stipulate that this treatment can include pharmacotherapies that extend beyond the six-
month period.
Contracting for Services for Post-Conviction Supervision of
Offenders (§253)

This provision would give the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts
the authority to enter into contracts with public and private agencies to monitor and provide a
wide array of services to offenders in the community to promote their reintegration.
Extension of National Prison Rape Elimination Commission (§261)
The act extends the authorization for the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission65 from
three years to five years.

65 42 U.S.C. 15606(d)(3)(A).
Congressional Research Service
28

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

Appendix B. Appropriations for DOJ Reentry Grant
Programs

Table B-1. Authorized and Appropriated Funding for the DOJ Reentry Program,
FY2001-FY2008
Appropriations and authorizations in millions of dollars
Fiscal Year
Authorized
Appropriated
2001 N.A.
$29.9
2002 N.A.
14.9
2003 15.0
14.8
2004 15.5
4.9
2005 16.0
9.9
2006 N.A.
4.9
2007 N.A.
14.9
2008 N.A.
11.8
Source: Data provided by the U.S. Department of Justice, Community Oriented Policing Services Office
Notes: “N.A.” means “not authorized.” Starting with FY2009, Congress started appropriating funding for DOJ’s
reentry program pursuant to the Second Chance Act (see Table B-2). Appropriated amount include al
rescissions of current year budget authority.
Table B-2. Authorized and Appropriated Funding for the Second Chance Act Grant
Programs Administered by the Department of Justice, FY2009-FY2014
Appropriations and authorizations in millions of dollars
Fiscal Year
Authorized
Appropriated
2009 $160.0
$25.0a
2010 160.0
100.0b
2011 N.A.
82.8c
2012 N.A.
63.0d
2013 N.A.
63.9e
2014 N.A.
67.8f
Source: FY2009 appropriations were taken from P.L. 111-8; FY2010 appropriations were taken from P.L. 111
117; FY2011 appropriations were based on a CRS analysis of the text of P.L. 112-10; FY2012 appropriations
were taken from P.L. 112-55; FY2013 appropriations were provided by the Department of Justice; FY2014
appropriations were taken from the joint explanatory statement to accompany P.L. 113-76, printed in the
January 15, 2014, Congressional Record (pp. H507-H532).
Notes: “N.A.” means “not authorized.” Appropriated amount include all rescissions of current year budget
authority.
a. The FY2009 appropriation included $15 million for the Adult and Juvenile Offender Reentry Demonstration
program and $10 million for mentoring grants to nonprofit organizations.
b. The FY2010 appropriation included $37 million for the Adult and Juvenile Offender Reentry Demonstration
program; $10 million for state and local reentry courts; $7.5 million for Family Substance Abuse Treatment
Congressional Research Service
29

Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community

Alternative to Incarceration grants; $2.5 million for grants to evaluate and improve education methods at
prisons, jails, and juvenile facilities; $5 million for Technology Careers Training Demonstration grants; $13
million for the Offender Reentry Substance Abuse and Criminal Justice Collaboration program; $15 million
for Mentoring Grants to Nonprofit Organizations; and $10 million for grants for offender reentry research.
c. The FY2011 appropriation included $30.6 million for the Adult and Juvenile Offender Reentry
Demonstration program; $8.3 million for state and local reentry courts; $6.2 million for Family Substance
Abuse Treatment Alternative to Incarceration grants; $2.1 million for grants to evaluate and improve
education methods at prisons, jails, and juvenile facilities; $4.1 million for Technology Careers Training
Demonstration grants; $10.8 million for the Offender Reentry Substance Abuse and Criminal Justice
Col aboration program; $12.4 mil ion for Mentoring Grants to Nonprofit Organizations; and $8.3 mil ion for
grants for offender reentry research.
d. For FY2012, $63 million was provided for DOJ-administered grant programs authorized under the Second
Chance Act, of which $4 million was set aside for a smart probation program. Congress allowed the
Administration to decide how the remaining $59 million would be allocated between the programs
authorized under the act.
e. For FY2013, $63.9 million was provided for DOJ-administered grant programs authorized under the Second
Chance Act, of which $4.6 million was set aside for a smart probation program. Congress allowed the
Administration to decide how the remaining $63.8 million would be allocated between the programs
authorized under the act. The FY2013 enacted amount also includes the amount sequestered per the
Budget Control Act of 2011(P.L. 112-25).
f.
For FY2014, $67.8 million was provided for DOJ-administered grant programs authorized under the Second
Chance Act, of which $6 million was set aside for a smart probation program, $2 million was set aside for a
Children of Incarcerated Parents Demonstration Grant program, and $7.5 million was set aside for a “Pay
for Success” program. Congress allowed the Administration to decide how the remaining $52.3 million
would be allocated between the programs authorized under the act.


Author Contact Information

Nathan James

Analyst in Crime Policy
njames@crs.loc.gov, 7-0264


Congressional Research Service
30