REOFFENDING RATES IN THE US
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Recidivism in the United States is high but slippery: depending on how it is measured, government and independent reports place three‑year rearrest or reincarceration rates in the tens of percentage points and ten‑year rearrest measures above 80 percent [1] [2]. Differences in definitions, follow‑up windows and policy changes mean one can credibly say both that reoffending is a persistent problem and that headline rates move widely across datasets and states [3] [4].
1. National headline figures — what the data say
A frequently cited Bureau of Justice Statistics finding is that about two‑thirds of people released from state prisons were rearrested within three years and more than four‑fifths were arrested within ten years, a pattern echoed in other overviews that report roughly 66 percent rearrested at three years and 82 percent at ten years [1] [2]. Those higher “rearrest” measures cast the widest net; narrower metrics—such as reconviction, reincarceration, or new prison sentences—produce lower but still substantial rates and are often used by states when reporting recidivism [2] [3].
2. Definitions and measurement — why numbers diverge
Recidivism can mean rearrest, reconviction, or reincarceration, and follow‑up windows range from six months to a decade; those choices change the headline rate dramatically [3] [5]. Many state reports focus on reincarceration within three years, producing rates that vary widely (for example, Arizona reports about 36.3 percent returning to custody within three years, while Alaska’s state data show far higher reincarceration figures near 61.6 percent) [3]. The federal Bureau of Justice Statistics publishes national recidivism statistics only periodically, which also complicates comparisons over time [4].
3. Variation by age, offense and criminal history
Recidivism is not uniform across populations: younger people “age out” of crime at lower rates as they grow older, and those released at 24 or younger face markedly higher five‑year reincarceration risk than older releasees [4]. Severity of the original conviction is a poor predictor of later reoffending in national data, while criminal history remains strongly correlated with repeat arrests—federal offenders with extensive histories show rearrest rates as high as 80.1 percent versus about 30.2 percent for those with no criminal history points [6] [4].
4. Time trends and competing interpretations
Recent analyses have produced conflicting narratives: some work suggests U.S. return‑to‑prison rates have fallen and are comparable to other nations when measured one way, while other scholars point to persistent high rearrest rates and explain divergence by changes in imprisonments and admission patterns [4] [1]. Barry Latzer and others argue that declines in imprisonment explain lower return‑to‑prison rates even as arrest‑based measures remain high, underscoring how policy shifts—fewer prison admissions—can mask stable or rising arrest rates [1].
5. What reduces reoffending — evidence and policy implications
State and federal reporting and practitioner groups emphasize that reentry supports—employment access, reduced occupational licensing barriers, and programs targeting mental health and substance use—are central to lowering recidivism, and organizations like the CSG Justice Center highlight scalable reentry strategies as effective levers [7] [8]. U.S. attorney offices and districts have also launched local reentry initiatives that aim to reduce returns to custody by coordinating services, a strategy mirrored in federal and nonprofit investments [9] [7].
6. Caveats, politics and the reader’s takeaway
Public debate over whether U.S. recidivism is “the highest in the world” often mixes incomparable metrics and selective country comparisons; systematic reviews warn against cross‑country comparisons without consistent follow‑up windows or definitions [5] [10]. Policymakers and advocates should therefore focus on which outcome matters locally—rearrest, reconviction, or reincarceration—and on interventions shown to work for targeted groups, while journalists and researchers must always note the data choices that drive headline rates [3] [4].