Time Served
The High Cost, Low Return
of Longer Prison Terms

PEW CENTER ON THE STATES

Public Safety Performance Project

June 2012

The Pew Center on the States is a division of The Pew Charitable Trusts that identifies and
advances effective solutions to critical issues facing states. Pew is a nonprofit organization
that applies a rigorous, analytical approach to improve public policy, inform the public,
and stimulate civic life.
PEW CENTER ON THE STATES

Susan K. Urahn, managing director
Michael Caudell-Feagan, deputy director
Research and Writing
Adam Gelb
Ryan King
Felicity Rose

Communications
Stephanie Bosh
Jennifer Laudano
Gita Ram
Gaye Williams

Design and Web
Jennifer Peltak
Evan Potler
Carla Uriona

EXTERNAL PROJECT TEAM

Avinash Bhati, Maxarth, LLC (researcher)
Jenifer Warren (writer)
EXTERNAL RESEARCH SUPPORT

The following experts provided valuable guidance in developing the research design and
methodology featured in this report. Organizations are listed for affiliation purposes only.
James F. Austin, JFA Institute
Gerald G. Gaes, Florida State University
Brian Ostrom, National Center for State Courts
Stephen Raphael, University of California-Berkeley (peer reviewer)
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Valuable research support was provided by the following Pew staff members: Sachini Bandara,
Peter Gehred, Sean Greene, Sarika Gupta, Samantha Harvell, Emily Lando, Aleena Oberthur,
and Denise Wilson. We would also like to thank William J. Sabol and Ann Carson of the U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics for their invaluable guidance in the use of data
from the National Corrections Reporting Program, as well as thinking through the intricacies
of estimating time served. George Camp and the staff of the Association of State Correctional
Administrators assisted with coordination with departments of corrections leadership.
For additional information, visit www.pewstates.org.
This report is intended for educational and informational purposes. References to specific policy makers
or companies have been included solely to advance these purposes and do not constitute an endorsement,
sponsorship, or recommendation by The Pew Charitable Trusts.
©2012 The Pew Charitable Trusts. All Rights Reserved.
901 E Street NW, 10th Floor				
Washington, DC 20004					

2005 Market Street, Suite 1700
Philadelphia, PA 19103

Contents
Executive Summary.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 1
Introduction.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 7
Length of Stay in States .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 11
Unpacking the Numbers:
What Shapes Length of Stay? .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 23
What Do We Gain from Increased Time Served?. .  .  .  .  .  . 33
How States Are Modifying Length of Stay .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 39
Appendix A: Estimating Length of Stay by State.  .  .  .  .  .  . 47
Appendix B: Full Methodology Criminal History
Accumulation Process (CHAP).  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 58
Endnotes.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 61

Time Served: The High Cost, Low Return of Longer Prison Terms

iii

Executive Summary
Over the past four decades, criminal
justice policy in the United States was
guided largely by a central premise: the
best way to protect the public was to put
more people in prison. A corollary was
that offenders should spend longer and
longer time behind bars.
The logic of the strategy seemed
inescapable—more inmates serving more
time surely equals less crime—and policy
makers were stunningly effective at putting
the approach into action. As the Pew
Center on the States has documented, the
state prison population spiked more than
700 percent between 1972 and 2011,
and in 2008 the combined federal-statelocal inmate count reached 2.3 million, or
one in 100 adults. Annual state spending
on corrections now tops $51 billion and
prisons account for the vast majority of the
cost, even though offenders on parole and
probation dramatically outnumber those
behind bars.
Indeed, prison expansion has delivered
some public safety payoff. Serious crime
has been declining for the past two
decades, and imprisonment deserves some
of the credit. Experts differ on precise

figures, but they generally conclude
that the increased use of incarceration
accounted for one-quarter to one-third of
the crime drop in the 1990s. Beyond the
crime control benefit, most Americans
support long prison terms for serious,
chronic, and violent offenders as a means
of exacting retribution for reprehensible
behavior.
But criminologists and policy makers
increasingly agree that we have reached
a “tipping point” with incarceration,
where additional imprisonment will have
little if any effect on crime. Research also
has identified new offender supervision
strategies and technologies that can help
break the cycle of recidivism.
Across the nation, these developments,
combined with tight state budgets, have
prompted a significant shift toward
alternatives to prison for lower-level
offenders. Policy makers in several states
have worked across party lines to reform
sentencing and release laws, including
reducing prison time served by nonviolent offenders. The analysis in this
study shows that longer prison terms have
been a key driver of prison populations

Time Served: The High Cost, Low Return of Longer Prison Terms

1

Executive Summary

and costs, and the study highlights new
opportunities for state leaders to generate
greater public safety with fewer taxpayer
dollars.

A State-Level Portrait of
Time Served
Prison populations rise and fall according
to two principal forces: 1) how many
offenders are admitted to prison, and 2)
how long those offenders remain behind
bars. In this report, Pew seeks to help
policy makers better understand the
second factor—time served in prison.
Historically, published statistics on
offenders’ length of stay in prison
consisted only of national estimates by
the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau
of Justice Statistics. The goal of this
Pew report is to go beyond the national
numbers and present a state-level portrait
of how time served has changed during

We must change the way in
which our laws work,
change the way in which the
system works, so that we can make
a clear distinction between those
who need to stay in prison to keep
the public safe versus those who
present little risk.”

“

—Hawaii Governor Neil Abercrombie (D),
January 23, 2012

2

Pew Center on the States

the past 20 years, how it has impacted
prison populations and costs, and how
policy makers can adjust it to generate
a better public safety return on taxpayer
dollars.
Toward that end, the study identifies
trends in time served by state and by
type of crime from 1990 to 2009, using
National Corrections Reporting Program
data collected from 35 states by the U.S.
Census Bureau and the Bureau of Justice
Statistics. States not included in the study
had not reported sufficient data over the
1990–2009 study period. Pew also worked
with external researchers to analyze data
from three states to assess the relationship
between time served and public safety.

A Longer Stay in Prison
According to Pew’s analysis of state data
reported to the federal government,
offenders released in 2009 served an
average of almost three years in custody,
nine months or 36 percent longer than
offenders released in 1990. The cost
of that extra nine months totals an
average of $23,300 per offender. When
multiplied by the hundreds of thousands
of inmates released each year, the
financial impact of longer length of stay
is considerable. For offenders released
from their original commitment in 2009
alone, the additional time behind bars
cost states over $10 billion, with more
than half of this cost attributable to nonviolent offenders.

Executive Summary

Although nearly every state increased
length of stay during the past two decades,
the overall change varied widely among
states. In a few states, time served grew
rapidly between 1990 and 2009, among
them Florida (166 percent), Virginia (91
percent), North Carolina (86 percent),
Oklahoma (83 percent), Michigan (79
percent), and Georgia (75 percent). Eight
states reduced time served, including
Illinois (down 25 percent) and South
Dakota (down 24 percent). Among
prisoners released from reporting states in
2009, Michigan had the longest average
time served, at 4.3 years, followed closely
by Pennsylvania (3.8 years). South Dakota
had the lowest average time served at 1.3
years, followed by Tennessee (1.9 years).

Time Served for Drug and Violent
Crimes Grew At Similar Pace
Percent Increase in Average Time Served,
1990 to 2009
40%

37%

30

36%

increase

increase

24%

20

increase

10

0

The growth in time served was remarkably
similar across crime types. Offenders
released in 2009 served:
n

For drug crimes: 2.2 years, up
from 1.6 years in 1990 (a 36 percent
increase)

n

For property crimes: 2.3 years up
from 1.8 years in 1990 (a 24 percent
increase)

n

For violent crimes: 5.0 years up
from 3.7 years in 1990 (a 37 percent
increase)

Again, the national numbers mask large
interstate variation. For violent crimes,
Florida led the way among states with

violent

property

drug

SOURCE: Pew Center on the States, 2012

a 137 percent increase in length of stay,
while prison stays for New York’s violent
inmates rose only 24 percent. Property
offenders in nine of 35 states served
less time on average in the last available
year of data compared with 1990, even
as those in Georgia, Florida, Virginia,
Oklahoma, and West Virginia saw average
increases of more than a year. States such
as Arkansas, Florida, and Oklahoma more
than doubled average time served by drug
offenders, even as Illinois, Missouri, New
York, Tennessee, and Nevada cut average
time served for the same group.

Time Served: The High Cost, Low Return of Longer Prison Terms

3

Executive Summary

A Questionable Impact on
Public Safety
Despite the strong pattern of increasing
length of stay, the relationship between
time served in prison and public safety
has proven to be complicated. For a
substantial number of offenders, there is
little or no evidence that keeping them
locked up longer prevents additional
crime.
A new Pew analysis conducted by external
researchers using data from three states—
Florida, Maryland, and Michigan—found
that a significant proportion of nonviolent offenders who were released in
2004 could have served shorter prison
terms without impacting public safety.
The analysis identifies how much sooner
offenders could have been released,
based on a risk assessment that considers
multiple factors including criminal history,
the amount of time each person has

As we reserve more of our
expensive [prison] bed space
for truly dangerous criminals [we]
free up revenue to deal with those
who are not necessarily dangerous
but are in many ways in trouble
because of various addictions.”

“

—Georgia Governor Nathan Deal (R), May 1, 2012

4

Pew Center on the States

already served in prison, and other data.
Looking only at non-violent offenders,
the analysis identified 14 percent of the
offenders in the Florida release cohort, 18
percent of the offenders in the Maryland
release cohort, and 24 percent of the
Michigan release cohort who could have
served prison terms shorter by between
three months and two years without
jeopardizing public safety.
Using this type of empirical analysis to
inform release policies could reduce
state prison populations and costs. If the
reductions in length of stay identified by
the risk analysis had been applied to nonviolent offenders in Florida, Maryland,
and Michigan in 2004, the average daily
prison population in those states would
have been reduced by as much as 2,600
(3 percent), 800 (5 percent), and 3,300
(6 percent) respectively. These reductions
represent substantial cost savings in each
state: $54 million in Florida, $30 million
in Maryland, and $92 million in Michigan.

States Begin to Moderate
Time Served
Policy makers in all three branches of
government can pull a variety of levers to
adjust the amount of time offenders serve
in prison. Prison time is influenced by
both front-end (sentencing) and back-end
(release) policy decisions. In several states,
policy makers have undertaken reforms

Executive Summary

intended to stem the growth in time served,
or actually reverse it, for certain offense
types. These initiatives include:
n

Raising the threshold dollar amount
required to trigger certain felony
property crime classifications. States
include Alabama, Arkansas, California,
Delaware, Montana, South Carolina,
and Washington.

n

Revising drug offense classification
in the criminal code to ensure the
most serious offenders receive the
most severe penalties. States include
Arkansas, Colorado, and Kentucky.

non-violent offenders as long as the twin
goals of holding offenders accountable and
protecting public safety still can be achieved.
Voters overwhelmingly prioritize preventing
recidivism over requiring non-violent
offenders to serve longer prison terms.
Nearly 90 percent support shortening prison
terms by up to a year for low-risk, nonviolent offenders if they have behaved well
in prison or completed programming, and
voters also support reinvesting prison savings
into alternatives to incarceration.

		* * * * *

The past five years have seen significant
shifts in corrections policy across the
nation, prompted both by tight budgets
n Rolling back mandatory minimum
and by increasing understanding that there
sentencing provisions. States include
are more effective, less expensive ways to
Delaware, Indiana, Michigan,
handle non-violent offenders than lengthy
Minnesota, and New York.
spells of incarceration. Public opinion, long
n Increasing opportunities to earn
concerned with controlling crime, is now
reductions in time served by completing focused more on cost-effectiveness and
prison-based programs. States include
recidivism reduction than on traditional
Colorado, Kansas, Pennsylvania, and
measures of “toughness.”
Wisconsin.
Today, policy makers have a much better
Revising eligibility standards for parole
consideration. States include Mississippi idea of what works to increase public safety
than they did in the 1980s and early 1990s.
and South Carolina.
Research clearly shows there is little return
on public dollars for locking up low-risk
Strong Public Support for
offenders for increasingly long periods of
Reform
time and, in the case of certain non-violent
Recent opinion polling suggests that these
offenders, there is little return on locking
reforms are being received well by the public. them up at all. In addition, actors at both
A national January 2012 poll of 1,200 likely
sentencing and release stages of the system
voters revealed that the public is broadly
have increasingly sophisticated tools to help
supportive of reductions in time served for
them identify these lower-risk offenders.
n

Time Served: The High Cost, Low Return of Longer Prison Terms

5

Executive Summary

States have been using this new
information to improve results and
reduce costs, and the analysis in this
report shows that more savings can be
garnered by thoughtfully calibrating
time served, and thus ensuring there

6

Pew Center on the States

is adequate prison space for the most
serious offenders. These promising
practices and many others can serve as
models for states looking to conserve
precious public dollars while keeping
communities safe.

Introduction
Between 1991 and 1995 the number of
media reports on crime in the United
States more than tripled, coinciding with
a jump in public concern about the issue.1
Federal and state lawmakers saw the
reports and responded quickly. Reasoning
that harsher sentences enacted in the
1970s and 1980s had been responsible
for the declining crime rates of the early
1990s, they decided the answer was to go
still further. At the time, little attention was
paid to the impacts extending prison terms
might have on public safety, or on costs to
taxpayers.
The consequences are now well known.
By 2008, the American prison population
had soared—one out of every 100 adults
was behind bars (see Figure 1). With this
growth in prison population has brought
rising costs. Across states, investment in
corrections has jumped more than 300
percent in the past two decades, with
expenditures now totaling more than $51
billion annually, or 7.3 percent of all state
general fund spending.2
Greater imprisonment clearly has yielded
public safety dividends, accounting for
an estimated one-quarter to one-third of

the crime drop during the 1990s.3 And
in some cases, longer sentences were not
only warranted to serve justice but also
necessary to protect the public.
Although few Americans would question
the wisdom of tough sentences for violent,
chronic offenders, most criminologists
now consider the increased use of prison
for non-violent offenders a questionable
public expenditure, producing little
additional crime control benefit for each
dollar spent.4 During the past decade,
all 17 states that cut their imprisonment
rates also experienced a decline in crime
rates.5 And a 2006 legislative analysis
in Washington State found that while
incarcerating violent offenders provides a
net public benefit by saving the state more
than it costs, imprisonment of property
and drug offenders leads to negative
returns.6
Policy makers, anxious to conserve
taxpayer dollars without sacrificing public
safety, are now rethinking the “longer is
better” approach to punishment. In the
past five years more than a dozen states,
starting with Texas and Kansas in 2007,
have enacted comprehensive sentencing

Time Served: The High Cost, Low Return of Longer Prison Terms

7

Introduction

Figure 1

Prison Populations Double Over Past 20 Years

State and federal prison population has more than doubled in the past two decades.

Dec. 31, 2010:
1,543,206 prisoners

1,500,000

1,000,000
1990:
739,980 prisoners

*1977

1925:
91,669 prisoners

0

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1990 to 2010

+109%

500,000

1980

1990

2000

2010

*Annual figures prior to 1977 reflect the total number of sentenced prisoners in state custody. Beginning in 1977, all figures
reflect the state jurisdictional population as reported in the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ “Prisoners” series. Data for both
sentenced prisoners in custody and jurisdictional population are reported for 1977 to illustrate the transition.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics; Pew Center on the States, Public Safety Performance Project.

and corrections reforms, typically shifting
non-violent offenders from prison and
using the savings to fund more effective,
less expensive alternatives. Partly due
to these and other policy changes, 2009
was the first year in nearly four decades
during which the state prison population
declined.7

are being held in prison, and how and why
the time period has changed over time,
is a critical first step toward helping state
leaders factor LOS into their assessments
of state crime and punishment policies.

Earlier research identified national trends
in how long offenders stay in prison, but
little is known about how LOS varies
at the state level. The U.S. Department
A New Focus on Time
of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics
Served
publishes an annual estimate of average
The prison population is driven by two
LOS nationally, but there is no such
factors: first, how many offenders are
resource for state numbers. A search of
admitted to prison, and second, how
state Departments of Corrections websites
long they stay. This report focuses on
revealed that fewer than half of the states
the second mechanism—time served,
publish publicly available numbers on
or length of stay (LOS), in prison.
LOS, with only five states providing such
Understanding the length of time offenders data going back more than 10 years. And

8

Pew Center on the States

Introduction

each state uses its own definitions and
measures, which hampers comparability.
Thus the first section of this report
presents state-level estimates of how much
time offenders spend in prison and how
this has changed since 1990.
Beyond that snapshot, it is also essential
to understand how and why LOS varies
among states. Time served is influenced
by both front-end (sentencing) and backend (release) policy decisions—and to
a lesser extent by policies and practices
within prisons. Since the 1980s, states
have adopted a wide variety of both frontend and back-end changes that have
lengthened LOS for the average offender.
In the second section of this report, we
explore the factors that affect time served.
We offer case studies of three states—
California, Florida, and Pennsylvania—to
demonstrate the complexity of the issues
and the need for policy makers to look

beyond the big picture trends to uncover
the specific factors at play in their states.
We conclude the report by exploring how
time served relates to public safety. We
present new research on whether current
levels of time served are promoting safe
communities in the most cost-effective
way. It is important to note that higher
cost is not necessarily a concern in
itself. Longer prison terms may well be
justified if policy makers believe that prior
punishments simply were inadequate
to reflect society’s need for retribution
for the crime. But penalties typically are
enhanced with public safety in mind, and
an expectation that longer prison terms
will reduce the total number of crimes that
offenders will commit. When these are the
goals, cost takes center stage and the key
question becomes not whether increasing
time served will reduce crime but rather,
“What is the best way to achieve the
greatest reduction in crime.”

Time Served: The High Cost, Low Return of Longer Prison Terms

9

Length of Stay in States
Using National Corrections Reporting
Program (NCRP) data collected by the
U.S. Census Bureau and the Bureau
of Justice Statistics, Pew estimated
the average length of stay (LOS) for
offenders released in each year from
1990 to 2009 (see Figure 2).

The NCRP gathers data from states on
a voluntary basis. Thirty-five states,
representing 89 percent of 2009 prison
releases, submitted data in a sufficient
number of years to allow estimates to be
calculated. Details on the methodology
are in the Appendix A.

Figure 2

Time Served Changes Vary Widely Across States, 1990 to 2009
Increases
>50%
26–50%
0–25%

WA

Decreases
0–25%
No Data

+27%
ND

MT
OR

ME

MN

+54%

+38%

+32%
ID
WY

–14%
+51%

MI

+79%

IA

IL*

KS

MO

OK

NM

WV

+86%

–6%
SC

+69%

+33%
MS*

+32%

AL

GA

+75%

* The most recent year
of available data is 2005.

NH*

+26%

MA
RI
CT
NJ*

+8%

MD
FL

HI

VT

DE

LA

–9%

AK

–15%

VA

+91%
NC

AR

+7% +28%
TX

+51%

+12%
TN

+83%

OH

IN
KY*

–14%
AZ

PA

+32%
–25%

CO

+33%

+2%

+11%

–6%
UT

+17%

CA

+18%

NE

NV

NY

WI*

SD

–24%

DC

+166%

SOURCE: Pew Center on the States, 2012.

Time Served: The High Cost, Low Return of Longer Prison Terms

11

Length of Stay in States

Defining Length of Stay
Length of stay can be measured in
several ways. The most common is the
“release cohort” measure, which we
call the “average LOS,” and that is the
primary measure we use in this report.
Considerations involved in measuring
LOS include:
Average vs. Expected LOS: “Average
LOS” measures the average time spent
in custody for offenders released in a
certain time period, usually one calendar
year. A second measure we call “expected
LOS” looks at the inmates in prison
during a given year and estimates how
long those inmates are likely to spend in
custody based on what percentage of the
population exits prison in that year. The
expected LOS will differ from the average
LOS if sentencing and release policies
are changing and inmates admitted more
recently will be serving shorter or longer
terms than their predecessors.
All Releases vs. First Releases: Prison
populations in many states include both
offenders serving time on their original
offenses and offenders who served time,
were released, and were returned to
prison for a violation of their parole or
other supervised release. Because parole
violators may serve shorter periods and
it is more difficult to compare these
groups accurately across states, we focus
solely on “first releases”—that is, people
released from their original sentence for
the first time.
12

Pew Center on the States

Prison Time vs. Total Custody Time:
Most prison inmates have spent some
period of time in jail before being
convicted and transferred to state prison.
Because this jail time counts toward an
Figure 3

Time Is Money
Cost of longer time served tops $10 billion
for offenders released in 2009.

$2,593

Average cost of one month
in prison, FY 2010

x

9 months

Additional time offenders released
in 2009 served relative to 1990

=
$23,333

Average cost of keeping
offenders in prison longer

x

*445,688

Offenders released in 2009
(50 states)

=
$10.4 billion
Total state cost of
keeping offenders
released in 2009 in
prison longer

*First releases only.
SOURCE: Pew Center on the States, 2012.

Length of Stay in States

offender’s sentence, we also count it as part
of an offender’s total LOS. When data on
an individual’s jail time were unavailable,
we estimated it based on the year and
offense category.

Table 1

Avg. Time Served Estimates
ALL CRIMES
1990

2009

Percentage
change

ALABAMA

2.2

2.9

28%

All Offenders

ARKANSAS

1.9

3.2

69%

CALIFORNIA

1.9

2.9

51%

Pew estimates that the average LOS for
offenders released from prison in reporting
states rose by 36 percent between 1990
and 2009 (see Table 1).8 Offenders
released in 2009 spent an average of 2.9
years in custody, nine months longer
than those released in 1990. While nine
months per inmate may not sound like a
long time, even a relatively small difference
in average time served can make a large
difference for an overall population. For
instance, considering only those offenders
released in 2009, an average increase of
nine months translates to cost increases of
more than $10 billion (see Figure 3).9 This
impact is magnified by successive cohorts
of offenders serving longer periods; each
cohort stacks on top of the cohort before,
leading to greater overall growth in the
prison population.

COLORADO

2.2

2.9

33%

FLORIDA

1.1

3.0

166%

GEORGIA

1.8

3.2

75%

HAWAII

3.7

3.1

–15%

ILLINOIS

2.2

1.7*

–25%

IOWA

2.2

2.4

11%

KENTUCKY

1.5

1.7*

12%

Among prisoners released in 2009 from
reporting states, Michigan had the longest
average time served, at 4.3 years, followed
closely by Pennsylvania (3.8 years), New
York (3.6 years), and Virginia (3.3 years).
South Dakota had the lowest average time
served at 1.3 years, followed by Tennessee
(1.9 years), and Missouri (2.1 years), and
North Dakota (2.0 years).

LOUISIANA

2.8

2.5

–9%

MICHIGAN

2.4

4.3

79%

MINNESOTA

1.7

2.3

38%

MISSISSIPPI

1.9

2.1*

MISSOURI

2.4

2.1

–14%

7%

NEBRASKA

2.2

2.1

–6%

NEVADA

2.8

2.5

–14%

NEW HAMPSHIRE

2.4

3.1*

26%

NEW JERSEY

2.4

2.6*

8%

NEW YORK

3.5

3.6

2%

N. CAROLINA

1.4

2.7

86%

N. DAKOTA

1.3

2.0

54%

OKLAHOMA

1.7

3.1

83%

OREGON

2.4

3.2

32%

PENNSYLVANIA

2.9

3.8

32%

S. CAROLINA

1.7

2.3

33%

S. DAKOTA

1.7

1.3

–24%

TENNESSEE

2.1

1.9

–6%

TEXAS

2.1

2.8

32%

UTAH

2.6

3.0

17%

VIRGINIA

1.7

3.3

91%

WASHINGTON

1.9

2.4

27%

WEST VIRGINIA

2.1

3.1

51%

WISCONSIN

2.5

2.9*

18%

NATIONAL

2.1

2.9

36%

* The most recent year of available data is 2005.
NOTES: Time Served estimates are in years. Ohio is omitted
due to irregularities with 2002 data.
SOURCE: Pew Center on the States, 2012.

Time Served: The High Cost, Low Return of Longer Prison Terms

13

Length of Stay in States

Figure 4

Overall Growth Hides Variation Among Offense Types
Percent Change in Average Time Served, 1990 to 2009
-25

0

25

50

75

all offenses*
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
TEXAS

violent

OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
TEXAS

property

OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
TEXAS

drug

OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
TEXAS

* Includes some offenses that are not counted in violent, property, or drug categories.
SOURCE: Pew Center on the States, 2012.

The overall change in LOS during the
period from 1990 to 2009 varied widely
among states (see Table 1). A few states
saw very large increases, among them
Florida (166 percent),Virginia (91 percent),
North Carolina (86 percent), Oklahoma
(83 percent), Michigan (79 percent), and
Georgia (75 percent).10 Time served actually
dropped in eight states, including Illinois
(down 25 percent), South Dakota (down 24
percent), Hawaii (down 15 percent), and
Missouri and Nevada (down 14 percent).
Nationally, the fastest period of growth
in time served came between 1995 and
2000. In that period, LOS rose 28 percent,
14

Pew Center on the States

compared with less than 5 percent in
the five-year periods before and after.
Most states mirrored this pattern, with
rapid growth in the late 1990s followed
by moderate growth or leveling off. The
most variation between states occurred
in the early 2000s, after some states had
experienced rapid growth. The differences
narrowed in the past five years, as the
others caught up.
In order to explain the interstate
variation in LOS, Pew classified offenders
into three offense categories—violent,
drug, and property—and created LOS
estimates for each of these categories

Length of Stay in States

Defining Violent
OffenseS
For the purposes of classification across
states, the broad offense definitions used
in this study are based on the most serious
offense for which an individual is currently
serving time. Crimes in some of the violent
offenses category include but are not
limited to:
n kidnapping
n aggravated assault
n armed robbery

n manslaughter

n child endangerment

n rape

n child molestation

n reckless
endangerment

n domestic violence
n extortion
n homicide

n robbery
n simple assault

in each state and year (see examples
in Figure 4). Offenders not fitting into
these categories (such as offenders
convicted of quality of life and weapons
offenses) were included in the total
calculations but are not presented as a
separate category.

Violent Offenders
Violent offenders released in 2009 served
an average of five years in custody, an
increase of 37 percent from 3.7 years
in 1990. Some simple math shows the
impact of that seemingly modest rise.
Multiplied by the number of first releases
of violent offenders in 2009, this cohort
cost $4.7 billion more than had they

served the 1990 average of 3.7 years in
prison. This figure is less than half of the
total cost of increased time served ($10
billion) between 1990 and 2009, with the
balance comprised of an increase in LOS
for non-violent offenders.
Time Served

Of all the violent offenders released
in 2009, those in Michigan served the
longest average time in custody, 7.6 years,
followed by Hawaii at 6.2 years (see Table
2). Alabama, New York, and Virginia
were close behind, with released violent
offenders in those states serving an average
of 6.0 years. Offenders in South Dakota
had the shortest average length of stay
among the reporting states at 2.5 years,
followed by North Dakota (3.0 years),
Minnesota (3.2 years), and Nebraska (3.3
years).
It is important to note that the violent
crime category includes a wide range of
offense types (see sidebar). The significant
variation in sentence length and time
served for the offenses comprising the
violent crime category means that state
averages will obscure important offense
variation to a greater degree than among
drug or property offenses. For example,
the national average of time served for
simple assault is 2.7 years, which is half
the average for all violent offenses. On
the other end of the offense severity
spectrum, the time served for released
offenders convicted of murder is nearly
triple the figure for all violent offenders.

Time Served: The High Cost, Low Return of Longer Prison Terms

15

Length of Stay in States

Table 2

Avg. Time Served Estimates
VIOLENT CRIMES
1990

2009

Percentage
change

ALABAMA

4.4

6.0

38%

ARKANSAS

3.6

5.1

41%

CALIFORNIA

2.8

4.6

63%

COLORADO

3.1

4.6

49%

FLORIDA

2.1

5.0

137%

GEORGIA

4.0

5.6

41%

HAWAII

5.5

6.2

13%

ILLINOIS

3.8

3.8*

0%

IOWA

3.5

3.9

12%

KENTUCKY

2.5

3.6*

43%

LOUISIANA

5.4

5.3

–2%

MICHIGAN

3.9

7.6

97%

MINNESOTA

2.4

3.2

34%

MISSISSIPPI

3.9

4.0*

3%

MISSOURI

4.9

4.8

–2%

NEBRASKA

3.9

3.3

–15%

NEVADA

5.8

4.4

–24%

NEW HAMPSHIRE

3.1

4.4*

45%

NEW JERSEY

3.5

4.7*

33%

NEW YORK

4.9

6.0

24%

N. CAROLINA

3.0

4.6

55%

N. DAKOTA

2.1

3.0

40%

OKLAHOMA

3.4

4.5

34%

OREGON

3.8

5.0

31%

PENNSYLVANIA

4.1

5.9

44%

S. CAROLINA

3.3

4.0

21%

S. DAKOTA

3.2

2.5

–21%

TENNESSEE

2.6

3.7

41%

TEXAS

3.7

5.3

44%

UTAH

4.2

5.5

32%

VIRGINIA

3.6

6.0

68%

WASHINGTON

2.6

4.2

60%

WEST VIRGINIA

3.0

4.7

55%

WISCONSIN

3.5

4.8*

36%

NATIONAL

3.7

5.0

37%

* The most recent year of available data is 2005.
NOTES: Time Served estimates are in years. Ohio is omitted
due to irregularities with 2002 data.
SOURCE: Pew Center on the States, 2012.

16

Pew Center on the States

It is important to note that the method
of estimating average time served in this
report includes data only from released
offenders. Inmates still in prison and
serving long sentences, including life
terms, are not included in the calculation.
Thus, the average time served of released
offenders may understate the average time
served for all offenders in the system. This
is a critical consideration when assessing
time served for violent offenders, who
typically serve longer sentences. See the
sidebar on expected time served (pages
21–22) for more information on alternative
methods of calculating time served for
violent offenders.
Trends

Looking at how time served by violent
offenders changed over time, Florida led
the way among states with a 137 percent
increase. Michigan followed with a 97
percent jump in LOS, while prison stays for
Virginia’s violent inmates rose 68 percent.
Overall, time served for violent offenders
rose steadily across the 20-year period,
though some states saw sharp increases in
the late 1990s and early 2000s.
Within the wide group of prisoners
classified as violent offenders, trends over
time also vary greatly by specific offense.
While the national average LOS for all
violent offenses increased by 37 percent
between 1990 and 2009, the average for
convicted murderers nearly doubled. For
all offenses discussed in this report, it is
critical for policy makers to keep in mind

Length of Stay in States

that the categories presented are aggregates
of many offense types and caution should be
used in drawing policy conclusions about any
specific sub-category without undertaking
further investigation.
Policy Changes

The main mechanism states used to
increase time served for violent offenders
was to require that offenders serve a larger
percentage of their sentences. Violent inmates
released in 2009 from the reporting states
served almost 80 percent of their sentences,
up from about 50 percent in 1990.
In the early 1990s, both time served
and percentage of sentence served were
flat. However in 1994, when the federal
government created an incentive for states
to implement “truth in sentencing” statutes
requiring violent offenders to serve a larger
proportion of their sentences, both percentage
of sentence served and time served began to
rise and continued to increase at about the
same rate for the next 15 years.
At the same time as violent offenders were
serving a higher percentage of their sentences,
average sentences were declining, from 7.4
years in 1990 to 6.4 years in 2009, somewhat
offsetting the trend toward increasing time
served.
But this dynamic varied by state. In New
York, both sentencing and release policy
changes contributed to longer time served.
Violent offenders served 60 percent of their

sentences in 1990 and 68 percent in 2009,
a 13 percent increase, while sentences grew
from 8.1 years to 8.9 years, a 10 percent
increase. Overall, in four states LOS was
mainly driven by increases in sentence length,
as opposed to 18 states where LOS was
driven by increase in percentage of sentence
served, and five states where the two drivers
were roughly equal.11 Accompanying state fact
sheets, available online, explore state-specific
patterns in more detail.

Property Offenders
Overall, length of stay for offenders serving
time for property crimes grew from 1.8 years
on average in 1990 to 2.3 years in 2009,
costing an additional $1.8 billion.

Defining PROPERTY
Offenses
For the purposes of classification across
states, the broad offense definitions used
in this study are based on the most serious
offense for which an individual is currently
serving time. Crimes in the property
offenses category include but are not
limited to:
n arson
n fraud
n breaking and
entering

n motor vehicle theft

n burglary

n sale of stolen
property

n embezzlement

n shoplifting

n forgery

n trespassing

Time Served: The High Cost, Low Return of Longer Prison Terms

17

Length of Stay in States

Time Served

Property offenders released in West
Virginia and Hawaii in 2009 served 3.2
and 3.3 years on average, a full year longer
than the national average (see Table 3).
South Dakota and Tennessee tied for
the shortest average LOS for property
offenders released in 2009, at 1.3 years in
each state, a full year less than the average.
Trends

The highest rate of growth was in
Florida, where the increase in LOS was
181 percent; Oklahoma (93 percent)
and West Virginia (93 percent) also
had high increases in LOS. But more
than a quarter of states had an overall
decrease in LOS for property offenders,
including Tennessee (45 percent), South
Dakota (23 percent), and Oregon (14
percent). The wide variation among
states could reflect changing offense
compositions, in which more low-level
property offenders are imprisoned,
or a deliberate shifting of resources
within prisons to make more room for
violent offenders. Both possibilities are
discussed further below.
Policy Changes

Released property offenders served an
average of 67 percent of their courtordered sentences in 2009, a significant
jump up from 43 percent in 1990. Average
sentences dropped from 4.3 years to 3.4
years, illustrating that time served was

18

Pew Center on the States

Table 3

Avg. Time Served Estimates
PROPERTY CRIMES
1990

2009

Percentage
change

ALABAMA

1.9

2.4

25%

ARKANSAS

1.7

2.5

44%

CALIFORNIA

1.9

2.2

16%

COLORADO

2.2

2.6

16%

FLORIDA

.9

2.7

181%

GEORGIA

1.5

2.5

68%

HAWAII

3.1

3.3

7%

ILLINOIS

1.9

1.4*

–24%

IOWA

2.0

2.3

12%

KENTUCKY

1.2

1.5*

20%

LOUISIANA

2.2

2.1

–5%

MICHIGAN

2.1

2.9

35%

MINNESOTA

1.4

1.6

16%

MISSISSIPPI

1.5

1.7*

17%

MISSOURI

1.9

1.7

–11%

NEBRASKA

1.7

1.7

0%

NEVADA

2.6

1.9

–26%

NEW HAMPSHIRE

2.5

2.6*

3%

NEW JERSEY

2.1

1.9*

–9%

NEW YORK

3

2.7

–11%

N. CAROLINA

1.4

1.7

20%

N. DAKOTA

1.1

1.6

41%

OKLAHOMA

1.5

2.9

93%

OREGON

2.2

1.9

–14%

PENNSYLVANIA

2.5

2.9

17%

S. CAROLINA

1.6

1.9

13%

S. DAKOTA

1.7

1.3

–23%

TENNESSEE

2.4

1.3

–45%

TEXAS

1.8

2.1

15%

UTAH

2.1

2.3

10%

VIRGINIA

1.6

2.7

62%

WASHINGTON

1.7

1.9

11%

WEST VIRGINIA

1.7

3.2

93%

WISCONSIN

2.3

3.2*

40%

NATIONAL

1.8

2.3

24%

* The most recent year of available data is 2005.
NOTES: Time Served estimates are in years. Ohio is omitted
due to irregularities with 2002 data.
SOURCE: Pew Center on the States, 2012.

Length of Stay in States

driven by changes in release policy rather
than by increases in sentences.
These trends were not uniform across
states; in 16 of the 32 states that reported
sentencing data, sentences rose, including
12 in which average sentences grew while
percentage of sentence served fell.

admissions, the 2009 cohort cost around
$2.3 billion due to the increased time
served. Considering the cumulative effects
of the change in LOS as well as the growth
in the number of drug offenders admitted
to and released from prison, the overall
impact of drug policy changes on prison
space used is significantly higher.

Drug Offenders

Time Served

Drug offenders released in 1990 served an
average of 1.6 years in custody, compared
with 2.2 years in 2009, an increase of 36
percent. At the same time, the number of
drug offenders sent to prison grew rapidly.
Without accounting for the change in

Drug offenders released in Arkansas (3.0
years), Hawaii (2.9 years), and Michigan
(2.9 years) in 2009 served the longest
average period in custody (see Table
4). Meanwhile drug offenders released
in South Dakota served an average of
1.1 years, the shortest term among the
reporting states.

Defining DRUG
OffenSES

Trends

For the purposes of classification across
states, the broad offense definitions
used in this study are based on the most
serious offense for which an individual is
currently serving time. Crimes in the drug
offenses category include but are not
limited to:
n delivery, sale, trafficking, manufacturing,
or importation of controlled substances
n false prescription for a controlled
substance or dangerous drug
n possession of drug paraphernalia
n possession/use of a controlled
substance

Arkansas also had one of the largest
increases since 1990, with LOS rising by
122 percent for drug offenders. Florida’s
drug offenders served nearly three times
as long in 2009 as in 1990—a 194
percent increase. Oklahoma also more
than doubled its average LOS with a 122
percent increase. Demonstrating a small
counter trend, five states saw time served
for drug crimes decrease during the past
two decades, with the largest decrease
in Illinois (a 25 percent decline between
1990 and 2005).
The growth in LOS for drug crimes took
place almost entirely in the 1990s, with 81

Time Served: The High Cost, Low Return of Longer Prison Terms

19

Length of Stay in States

Table 4

Avg. Time Served Estimates
DRUG CRIMES
1990

2009

Percentage
change

ALABAMA

1.5

2.0

35%

ARKANSAS

1.4

3.0

122%

CALIFORNIA

1.6

2.3

41%

COLORADO

1.8

2.5

35%

FLORIDA

0.8

2.3

194%

GEORGIA

1.1

2.1

85%

HAWAII

2.6

2.9

12%

ILLINOIS

1.6

1.2*

–25%

IOWA

1.7

2.3

33%

KENTUCKY

.9

1.2*

34%

LOUISIANA

2.0

2.1

7%

MICHIGAN

1.7

2.9

74%

MINNESOTA

1.1

2.2

99%

MISSISSIPPI

1.2

1.8*

45%

MISSOURI

1.5

1.4

–10%

NEBRASKA

1.4

1.6

8%

NEVADA

2.1

1.8

–16%

NEW HAMPSHIRE

2.0

2.3*

14%

NEW JERSEY

1.8

2.1*

14%

NEW YORK

2.5

2.2

–9%

N. CAROLINA

1.3

1.7

38%

N. DAKOTA

1.0

1.8

86%

OKLAHOMA

1.2

2.6

122%

OREGON

1.0

1.7

62%

PENNSYLVANIA

2.0

2.8

44%

S. CAROLINA

1.4

2.2

57%

S. DAKOTA

1.0

1.1

15%

TENNESSEE

1.6

1.5

–9%

TEXAS

1.6

1.8

14%

UTAH

1.8

2.0

11%

VIRGINIA

1.3

2.2

72%

WASHINGTON

1.2

1.8

48%

WEST VIRGINIA

1.4

2.3

66%

WISCONSIN

1.6

2.3*

43%

NATIONAL

1.6

2.2

36%

* The most recent year of available data is 2005.
NOTES: Time Served estimates are in years. Ohio is omitted
due to irregularities with 2002 data.
SOURCE: Pew Center on the States, 2012.

20

Pew Center on the States

percent of states increasing LOS between
1990 and 2000. In the 2000s, 55 percent
of states experienced an increase in LOS,
while 45 percent saw LOS decrease
(although the average generally still
remained above 1990 levels).
Policy Changes

In 2009, released drug offenders served
a larger percentage of their sentences
than in 1990 (61 percent as opposed
to 42 percent). Average sentences rose
from 1990 to 2001 and then began to
decline, leading to a small overall decline
in sentence length from 3.8 years in
1990 to 3.6 years by 2009. This national
decline was driven by Texas, Virginia, and
North Carolina, where sentences for drug
offenders decreased precipitously in the
early 2000s.

Length of Stay in States

Expected Time Served
The length of stay (LOS) measure used
in this report, the most common method
for calculating time served in prison, is
the average time served for all inmates
who were released in a particular year.
However, this is only one means of
measuring LOS in prison and, when there
is wide variation in sentence length or
when offenders are serving a very long
time, this method may underrepresent
certain types of offenders in any given
release cohort. For instance offenders
sentenced to 25 years to life in prison
are not counted in the average until they
are released, perhaps 30 or 40 years after
entering prison.
The purest method of measuring LOS
would involve tracking inmates over
the full duration of their sentence. For
instance, we could track every individual
who enters prison in a given year from
admission through release and count the
total amount of time served. This would
provide an accurate picture of how long
everyone stayed in prison; however, the
time horizon it would require to track
every admission through their eventual
release makes this approach prohibitive.
Thus, statistical means are required to
estimate LOS based on actual releases,
attempting to account for offenders who
have yet to be released.

One such approach involves estimating
the expected LOS of individuals who are
in prison during a particular year. This
measure accounts for offenders serving
longer sentences who are less likely to be
released in a given year, such as serious,
violent criminals. This is estimated using
both the stock population (how many
offenders are in prison at the end of the
year) and the number of offenders released
from prison during the same year. (See
Appendix A for details on methodology.)
The expected LOS measure found that
violent offenders entering or remaining
in prison in 2009 could expect to spend
about 7.1 years in custody, more than
two years longer than the average LOS for
violent criminals released in that year (see
Table 5). This difference is more significant
in states in which a larger portion of the
prison population is made up of long-term
inmates. For instance, in Louisiana and
Pennsylvania the expected LOS for violent
criminals in prison in 2009 is 9.1 and 11.1
years respectively, significantly longer than
the 5.3 and 5.9 years served by offenders
in the 2009 release cohorts for those states.
Looking at murder, Pew finds an even
starker difference. The expected time
served for murder in 2009 is 38 years,
almost triple the 14 years served on

Time Served: The High Cost, Low Return of Longer Prison Terms

21

Length of Stay in States

Expected Time Served (CONTINUED)
average by murderers released in that year.
In California and Georgia, states with large
populations serving life terms, expected time
served for murderers is more than 50 years,
compared with averages of 16 and 20 years
in their release cohorts.
For property and drug offenders, who are
already cycling through the system relatively
quickly, the expected time served calculation
makes less difference. In some states, with
a few long-serving drug and property
offenders and a large population serving
short stays, the expected time served for
offenders in these categories is lower than
the release cohort estimate.

There is no perfect measure of LOS. The
release cohort measure inspires confidence
because it counts actual time served by
actual people. But research has shown that
the expected time served measure generally
gets closer to the average we would find
if we could track each individual into the
future.12 Unfortunately, states frequently do
not collect the data necessary to conduct
these analyses. States can improve their use
of data-driven policy making by making
sure they are collecting and publishing the
information necessary to calculate different
measures of LOS, thereby providing a better
understanding of the sentencing and release
policies in their jurisdictions.

Table 5

Average and Expected Time Served Estimates, All and Violent Crimes
All Crimes

2005
Average Expected

Violent Crimes

2009
Average Expected

2005
Average Expected

2009
Average Expected

ARKANSAS

3.0

2.7

3.2

3.8

5.1

5.7

5.1

8.3

CALIFORNIA
GEORGIA
IOWA

2.8
3.4
2.2

4.2
3.9
2.5

2.9
3.2
2.4

4.4
4.0
3.6

4.2
5.8
3.8

6.7
7.2
4.4

4.6
5.6
3.9

7.0
7.7
6.3

LOUISIANA

2.6

3.7

2.5

3.4

5.3

9.0

5.3

9.1

MINNESOTA

2.3

2.6

2.3

2.5

3.1

3.6

3.2

3.7

MISSOURI

2.0

3.0

2.1

3.3

4.8

6.5

4.8

7.5

NEW YORK

3.5

5.1

3.6

4.8

5.6

7.7

6.0

7.0

NORTH CAROLINA

2.6

4.4

2.7

4.3

4.3

6.4

4.6

6.3

OKLAHOMA

3.2

3.4

3.1

3.7

5.0

7.3

4.5

6.4

OREGON

3.3

5.1

3.2

6.2

5.0

6.3

5.0

8.3

PENNSYLVANIA

3.7

6.2

3.8

7.3

5.9

9.3

5.9

11.1

SOUTH CAROLINA

2.2

3.1

2.3

3.3

4.0

6.0

4.0

6.2

TENNESSEE

1.9

3.0

1.9

2.8

3.7

5.1

3.7

4.9

TEXAS

2.6

3.5

2.8

3.2

4.8

6.8

5.3

6.2

AVERAGE

2.8

3.8

2.8

4.0

4.7

6.5

4.8

7.1

NOTES: Only states that submitted stock population data to the NCRP for both 2005 and 2009 were included in this analysis. Time served
estimates are in years.
SOURCE: Pew Center on the States, 2012.

22

Pew Center on the States

Unpacking the Numbers:
What Shapes Length of Stay?
Length of stay (LOS) is driven by a
complicated interaction of crime and
conviction rates and policies and practices
within each of the three branches of
government. These include criminal penalty
statutes and the relative funding provided for
prisons and alternatives by the legislature;
sentencing policies and decisions by the
courts; and release policies set by parole
boards and corrections departments within
the executive branch. States differ in terms
of which factors are the most significant
predictors of time served and how those
factors interact. For these reasons, assessing
the policies and practices that impact time
served requires an examination of all stages
of criminal case processing.

Crime and Conviction Rates
Drive Mix of Prisoners
At the most basic level, the average time
served by the overall state prison population
is driven by who goes to prison. If a prison
population is largely comprised of serious
violent offenders, average time served
will be longer than if the population is
heavily weighted toward drug and property
offenders. Rising rates of violent crime,
accompanied by rising arrest and conviction
rates, will therefore lead to longer overall

time served, assuming everything else
remains the same. But a state’s offender mix
also can be affected by deliberate policing
decisions, such as a sustained crackdown
on drug and quality of life crimes. If drug
offenders are arrested as a result of strategic
policing crackdowns, and then convicted
and sentenced to prison at a higher rate, the
overall average time served might decline,
even with no change in the underlying
violent and property crime rate.

Legislators Take the Lead on
Sentencing Policy
In most states, legislatures are responsible for
creating and approving changes in sentencing
policy. Statutes establish the baseline for all
criminal sentences, including the minimum
and maximum terms, requirements for the
percentage of sentence that must be served,
and whether offenders can earn credits
toward sentence reduction.
Beyond this baseline, states’ approaches to
shaping sentencing vary considerably. In
Texas and Georgia, judges in most cases
have the authority to sentence anywhere
within broad statutory ranges, which can
stretch from probation all the way to 20
years in prison and beyond. Some states,

Time Served: The High Cost, Low Return of Longer Prison Terms

23

Unpacking the Numbers: What Shapes Length of Stay?

such as Maryland, have voluntary guidelines
that recommend sentences within wide
ranges inside the statutory boundaries, and
judges can depart from the guidelines without
stating reasons. A few states, typified by
North Carolina, have stricter guidelines that
prescribe sentences within narrow bands
unless the court finds and articulates special
circumstances. Since the late 1980s, states have
used sentencing policy changes both to drive
up (California and Pennsylvania) and to restrict
(Wisconsin, Oregon, and Minnesota) average
time served.13
The U.S. Congress also has played a role at the
state level, by creating incentives for certain
types of sentencing policies. Specifically, the
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement
Act of 1994 provided federal Violent-Offender
Incarceration and Truth-in-Sentencing (VOI/
TIS) grants to states that require violent
offenders serve 85 percent of their sentences.
While there is evidence suggesting that states
would have enacted such policies without
federal intervention, these grants helped
accelerate prison expansion.14 Missouri is
a good example of a state that overcame
concerns about overcrowded prisons with
the encouragement of the federal legislation,
expanding capacity by 30 percent with the
help of the grants.15

Courts, Prosecutors Decide
Fate of Individual Cases
Decisions about how to charge a defendant after
arrest and booking can have a profound impact
on future LOS in prison. In most instances,
prosecutors have significant discretion in
24

Pew Center on the States

determining which charges to file. Defendants
are frequently booked for a host of crimes
and prosecutors prioritize offenses, a choice
influenced by factors such as severity of the
offense and quality of the evidence. While
some charging decisions are fairly cut-anddried, others involve a process of deliberation
within the prosecutor’s office. The outcome of
that deliberation—whether a drug offender is
charged with trafficking, sales, or possession
with intent to distribute, for instance—can
have a substantial impact on plea negotiations,
sentence length and, ultimately, on time
served. Moreover, many states have habitual
offender laws with sentence enhancements
that can greatly boost time served in prison.
For example, in California, prosecutors can
choose whether or not to charge certain offenses
as a “strike,” making an offender eligible for
prosecution under the “three strikes” law. (For
more information, see the section on California.)
After the decision about what offenses to charge,
prosecutors also have discretion to offer a plea
package to the defendant. National estimates
suggest that 94 percent of all criminal charges
are disposed of through pleas.16 Prosecutors
have flexibility in negotiating these agreements,
and, depending on court rules, may agree
upon a sentence in the plea process without
involving a judge at all. With nearly every felony
case being disposed of by plea negotiation, the
impact on sentence length and time served
cannot be overstated.
While judicial discretion has been curtailed
in many states during the past few decades,
judges ultimately determine the disposition
and duration of the vast majority of sentences.

Unpacking the Numbers: What Shapes Length of Stay?

In half of the states,17 most felony criminal
sentences are indeterminate, and judges retain
significant discretion to hand down penalties
that are defined by broad statutory ranges.18
While the parole board retains ultimate
release authority in an indeterminate system,
eligibility dates for release are determined
by the judge’s initial sentence. In states with
sentencing guidelines, courts sentence within
smaller prescribed ranges of varying sizes,
but can depart from those ranges when
the case presents aggravating or mitigating
circumstances. This can result in significant
variation in sentence length and time served.
Regardless of the specific sentencing system
in each state, sentences typically vary, often
widely, from district to district and from
courtroom to courtroom.

Parole Boards Make Release
Decisions
In terms of back-end policies that influence
LOS, the use of parole—whether it is available
and, if so, how it is granted—is a major
contributor to the variations in time served
among states. In many states, release from
prison is discretionary, governed by a parole
board that develops criteria to assess an
inmate’s readiness for release and sets a date.
The parole board exerts significant influence
on time served. Factors such as offense type,
criminal history, program completion, conduct
while in custody, and risk of re-offending are
considered by parole boards when deciding
whether to release an offender. In reviewing
such factors, board members typically possess
a substantial degree of discretion to determine
the ultimate parole date.

In many states, year-to-year changes in parole
policy, board membership, the board’s release
criteria, and type of inmates who come up for
parole review can have a profound effect on
grant rates, thereby driving time served up
or down. In Texas, recent changes to parole
guidelines that have redefined risk categories are
thought to have resulted in an increase in parole
grant rates. In September 2010, the parole grant
rate was 29 percent. By February 2012, that
figure had increased to 42 percent, resulting in
800 more offenders being released to parole in
that month compared with September 2010.19
In some cases, parole boards decide not to
consider release until a certain percentage of the
sentence has been served.
Board members’ discretion is not the only
dynamic that can influence the release date.
If board members value programs that
prepare inmates to return to life outside the
walls, such as substance abuse treatment or
literacy, they may postpone release until those
programs can be completed. A recent survey
of parole releasing authorities found that lack
of inmate programming was the single biggest
factor in delaying release.20 Other common
obstacles to release include an offender’s
inability to attend a review hearing; the lack
of timely post-sentence and other investigative
reports; and the absence of victim input.
Even basic administrative troubles related
to parole boards can affect length of stay.
Pennsylvania typifies this experience; at one
point in late 2011 its board was short two
members, leading to 800 fewer parole cases
processed each month and a backlog of
prisoners awaiting parole consideration.21

Time Served: The High Cost, Low Return of Longer Prison Terms

25

Putting the Pieces Together: Examples from Three States
To help understand how the various factors influencing time served interact, it is helpful to
look at the experience of individual states. Florida, California, and Pennsylvania all had
large changes in length of stay (LOS) from 1990 to 2009. In each state, multiple policies and
practices shaped the numbers in different ways and at different moments during the study
period. Their stories illustrate the importance of looking beyond the overall figures.

Florida

result, inmates in that era served only about
30 percent of their court-ordered terms.

Factors Driving LOS Changes
 1995 truth-in-sentencing/85 percent rule
 Tougher penalties, including 10-20-Life
 Increasing incarceration of drug offenders
and use of “Year and a Day” sentences

Florida stands out among the states for
the dramatic increase—166 percent—in
time served during Pew’s tracking period
and for the twists and turns in policy
that influenced the numbers over time.
In 1990, the average LOS by a Florida
prisoner was just 1.1 years, the shortest
among states (see Figure 5). It was easy to
see why. Throughout the prior decade, a
capacity crunch combined with court limits
on prison overcrowding drove Florida to
adopt generous policies on “gaintime” that
reduced offenders’ time in prison. These
included some credits that were automatic,
rather than awarded based on program
participation or good behavior. “We called
it ‘walking around breathing time,’ because
the moment an offender entered the system,
he got 30 percent off his sentence,” recalled
Amanda Cannon, staff director of the state’s
Senate Criminal Justice Committee. As a

26

Pew Center on the States

By the mid-1990s, the national truth-insentencing movement was at full throttle,
and Florida—where outrage lingered
over the murders of two Miami police
officers by an ex-offender released after
serving only half his term—was ready for
a pendulum swing. Prison capacity had
increased, the 1993 killing of a British
vacationer had stained the state’s image as
a tourist playground, and a group called
Stop Turning Out Prisoners (STOP) was
attracting a large following. STOP’s push
for a state constitutional amendment
requiring offenders to serve 85 percent of
their sentence was blocked by the Florida
Supreme Court. But in early 1995, the state
legislature voted unanimously to enact the
85 percent rule for all offenders, regardless
of the crime.
Accompanying that step was a steady stream
of bills that toughened penalties for specific
felonies. These included longer sentences
for sex offenders and murderers, mandatory
minimum terms for home burglary,
aggravated battery, and other crimes, as
well as new penalties for violent habitual

Putting the Pieces Together: Examples from Three States
offenders. Perhaps the highlight of Florida’s
escalating toughness was its 10-20-Life
law, passed in 1999. The law imposed new
penalties for possessing, pulling, or firing
a gun during commission of a crime, and
mandated terms of 25 years to life in prison
for those who injured or killed someone
with a firearm. Offenders sentenced under
the law may not earn time credits to reduce
their terms.
In addition to authorizing stiffer sentences,
the Legislature in 1997 adopted the
Criminal Punishment Code, which
created greater discretion for judges in
sentencing, increased penalties for many
crimes, and made more felony offenders
subject to mandatory prison terms. The
revisions, along with the proliferation of
longer sentences overall, gradually gave
prosecutors greater leverage to negotiate
plea bargains, which now make up about
98 percent of case dispositions in Florida.
As effects of the new penalties and timeserved requirements percolated through
the system, the average time served by
offenders ticked upward. In 1995, the year
the 85 percent rule passed, the average
LOS for violent felons stood at 3.7 years,
but by 2005, it had reached 5.0 years.
Counteracting that trend, however, was
an influx of offenders with comparatively
short terms, whose arrival in the system
helped push the overall LOS number down
beginning in 1999. In fiscal year (FY) 199697, for example, drug offenders made up
22.6 percent of new admissions, but by FY

2006-07 the proportion was 30.6 percent.22
Moreover, between 2003 and 2008, Florida
experienced a big jump in the use of “year
and a day” sentences. This is notable
because offenders sentenced to a year or
less serve their time in local jails rather
than in state prisons. These “year-anda-day” sentences often were imposed by
courts under pressure to relieve crowding
and costs in their local jails and included
a large proportion of offenders snared by a
Department of Corrections policy requiring
“zero tolerance” for probation violations.
The policy was revoked by 2008; but, while
in effect, the number of violators sentenced
to prison rose by nearly 12,000.

Figure 5

Time Served Trends
FLORIDA

T
C

Average length of stay, in years

A

6
5.0

5
VIOLENT
4
ALL
3

PROPERTY
DRUG

2

2.7
2.3

No data
available

1

0

3.0

‘90

‘95

‘00

‘05

‘09

SOURCE: Pew Center on the States, 2012.

Time Served: The High Cost, Low Return of Longer Prison Terms

S

27

T
P

Putting the Pieces Together: Examples from Three States

California
Factors Driving LOS Changes
 1994 truth-in-sentencing requirements
 “Three Strikes and You’re Out” initiative,
including doubled sentences for second
strikers
 Cuts to rehabilitation programs, curbing
prisoners’ ability to earn credits toward
release

During the past two decades, the average
time served in California prisons rose by 51
percent overall, but jumped 63 percent for
violent offenders (see Figure 6). Multiple
factors explain the increase, beginning with
the legislature’s adoption of increasingly
tougher penalties for repeat offenders and
crimes of violence, including numerous
offenses involving gangs and the use of guns.

to 170,000 in 2006, when then-Gov.
Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a stateof-emergency in the state’s 33 crowded
prisons. Senate President Pro Tempore
Darrell Steinberg, a legislator since 1998,
said the crisis proves that, “We need to do a
better job of distinguishing between violent
offenders who should be in state prison for
a long time to protect the public, and those
who can serve their sentences in ways that
are frankly less expensive to the taxpayer
and consistent with public safety.”

California voters also have had a hand in
extending LOS, using the state’s popular
initiative process to pass a series of ballot
measures. A few were crackdowns on sex
offenders, but the most influential was the
“Three Strikes and You’re Out” initiative
passed by 72 percent of voters in 1994.
One of the first of its kind in the nation, the
law also is among the toughest, because it
One study found that between 1976, when carries the possibility of life in prison for
the state adopted its Determinate Sentencing any third felony, not just a violent crime.
Law, and 2006, legislators passed at least 80 Today, California prisons house about
8,500 third strikers, who have sentences
substantive increases in sentence length.23
of 25 years to life and can be released only
These ranged from creating new offenses,
by the parole board. But a much larger,
such as carjacking, to adding a five-year
often overlooked group serving long terms
enhancement for offenders whose victims
are “second strikers” who, having already
are left paralyzed or with brain injuries.
committed one felony when charged
In addition, California in 1994 embraced
with a second strike, receive double the
truth-in-sentencing, requiring that most
sentence for the second offense. Numbering
violent felons serve 85 percent of their
32,000—or about 20 percent of the prison
terms and limiting their ability to earn
population through 2011—second strikers
release credits. The tougher penalties and
must serve 80 percent of their imposed
minimum mandatory terms combined to
sentences and are limited in the amount
push California’s prison population from
of earned-time credits they may accrue. A
about 24,000 inmates in the early 1980s
28

Pew Center on the States

Putting the Pieces Together: Examples from Three States
2010 report by the California State Auditor
concluded that offenders sentenced
under the three strikes law would serve,
on average, nine years longer than they
otherwise would have for their crimes.

time served by offenders in its prisons.
Beginning in October 2011, the state
began to divert thousands of incoming
non-violent offenders from prison to
county jails. This “realignment,” developed
by Gov. Edmund G. (Jerry) Brown Jr. and
Meanwhile, California has long struggled to approved by the legislature as Assembly
provide sufficient rehabilitation and work
Bill 109, came in response to a U.S.
programs in its prisons; participation in
Supreme Court order on overcrowding
such programs is one way eligible offenders that requires the state to reduce its prison
can earn a reduction in their time served.
population by about 35,000 inmates by
One study found that for offenders released mid-2013. Because of the realignment,
in 2006, half had not attended a single
offenders’ average stay in prison is roughly
rehabilitation program or work assignment 12 months, mostly for drug and property
while behind bars.24 Budget troubles create crimes. Their absence from the population
one barrier, and overcrowding means
will create a heavier concentration of
competition for slots and a lack of space in inmates serving longer terms.25
prisons, where even the hallways have been
Figure 5filled with beds. Violence, exacerbated by
Figure 6
the overcrowding,
Time Served
Trends also has led to frequent
Time Served Trends
lockdowns, during which programs are
FLORIDA
CALIFORNIA
Average length
of stay, in years
Average length of stay, in years
suspended.
6

5

4

6

With the largest state correctional system
in the country, California is 5.0
currently
in the throes of a major policy shift that
VIOLENT
will substantially lengthen the average
ALL

3

2

1

0

PROPERTY
if you had

—Joan Petersilia, co-director, Stanford Criminal
‘90Justice Center
‘95
‘00
‘05
‘09

SOURCE: Pew Center on the States, 2012.

4.6

4
VIOLENT

3.0

I think
a2.7
list of all
DRUG
the potential
factors
2.3 that
could drive up LOS in prison,
No data
California would have
a check by
available
every one of them.”

“

No data
available

5

2.9

3

2.3

ALL

2

2.2

DRUG
PROPERTY

1

0

‘90

‘95

‘00

‘05

‘09

SOURCE: Pew Center on the States, 2012.

Figure 7
Time Served: The High Cost, Low Return of Longer Prison Terms

Time Served Trends
PENNSYLVANIA

29

Putting the Pieces Together: Examples from Three States

Pennsylvania
Factors Driving LOS Changes
 Use of jails to hold offenders with
shorter sentences
 High-profile crimes leading to changes
in parole board practices
 Alternatives for drug offenders

In Pennsylvania, the relatively long
average time served by offenders in state
prison reflects the Keystone State’s heavy
reliance on county jails. In 2010, jails
represented 33 percent of all criminal
sentences imposed in Pennsylvania, while
state prisons accounted for just 13 percent
and the balance went to probation or
other alternatives, proportions that have
held steady in recent decades.26 “Clearly,
that skews the offender mix in prison
toward people serving longer terms, so the
average length of time served is naturally
longer,” said Mark Bergstrom, executive
director of the Pennsylvania Commission
on Sentencing. In addition, offenders
serving life terms in Pennsylvania—about
4,300 people, or 9.4 percent of the prison
population—are not eligible for parole,
and, until 2008, Pennsylvania inmates
were unable to accumulate earned time,
two factors that also increase time served.
Like California and Florida, Pennsylvania
adopted increasingly tough penalties
for felons through the 1990s, steadily
nudging the LOS average for violent
crimes higher. But in contrast to those

30

Pew Center on the States

states, Pennsylvania operates under an
indeterminate sentencing structure,
so its experience also has been shaped
heavily by actions of its parole board.
In the 1980s, the governor-appointed
board tended to grant parole to most
offenders when they had served their
minimum term, barring misbehavior
behind bars. But periodically in the
past two decades, high-profile crimes
committed by parolees have caused spells
of increased caution on the part of the
board, triggering a drop in the parole rate
and thereby increasing the average time
served in prison.
One notable episode came in 1995,
when a paroled offender named Robert
“Mudman” Simon shot and killed a
police officer just three months after his
release. During the previous year, 72
percent of prisoners who were eligible
and applied for parole received it, and
it took just one vote of the five-member
board to authorize. The year after
Simon’s crime, however, the parole rate
plunged to 38 percent, while subsequent
reforms expanded the board to nine
members and required five votes to
parole violent offenders. Not surprisingly,
the average LOS for violent offenders
jumped five months (9 percent) in a
single year from 1995 to 1996. The
notorious case also prompted then-Gov.
Tom Ridge to call a special legislative
session on crime in 1995. Lawmakers
substantially increased maximum terms
for a wide range of felonies.

9

0

‘90

‘95

‘00

‘05

‘09

Putting the Pieces Together: Examples from Three States
SOURCE: Pew Center on the States, 2012.

Figure 7

Time Served Trends
PENNSYLVANIA
Average length of stay, in years
5.9

6
VIOLENT

5

ALL

4

3.8

PROPERTY

3
DRUG

2.9
2.8

2
No data
available

1

0

‘90

‘95

‘00

‘05

‘09

SOURCE: Pew Center on the States, 2012.

Meanwhile, Pennsylvania’s Commission
on Sentencing adopted new guidelines
in 1997 that continued the trend of
escalating prison terms for violent felons,
but also established alternative sanctions,
such as treatment options, for many drug
offenders. As a result, prison time served

by Pennsylvania drug offenders began to
drop from an average high of 2.9 years
in 1998 to a low of 2.5 years in 2003, a
change of five months or 15 percent (see
Figure 7).
With tougher criminal penalties on
the books and political sensitivity
over the “Mudman” case on the wane,
Pennsylvania’s parole rate eventually
began to inch back up. But another
highly publicized crime, in 2008, sparked
another contraction. In this case, a
convicted robber paroled after serving
10 years of a maximum 12-year sentence
shot and killed a Philadelphia police
officer. The killing by parolee Daniel
Giddings, just one month after his release,
created a widespread public outcry and
prompted then-Gov. Ed Rendell to order
a moratorium on parole. While in place,
the moratorium cut the number of paroles
by 800 a month, driving Pennsylvania’s
prison population up and extending the
average LOS. The moratorium was fully
lifted by spring of 2009, but it caused
a backlog that slowed the processing of
parole cases into early 2012.

Time Served: The High Cost, Low Return of Longer Prison Terms

31

What Do We Gain from Increased
Time Served?
The accurate measurement and analysis of
the length of time offenders stay in prison
has significant implications for policy
makers interested in the scale and cost of
their state’s prison system. Understanding
length of stay (LOS) is critical for policy
makers to answer two important questions.
First, what policies help explain the current
prison population and price tag? Second,
how does the length of time an offender
spends in prison affect crime rates?
As discussed above, increases in time
served over recent decades have been a
major driver of prison growth, and the
cumulative effect of extending LOS even
a few months for certain offenses has a
substantial effect on the prison population.
The average cost of a day in prison is
$85, so an additional nine months equals
almost $23,300 additional cost per
prisoner.27 The substantial impact on state
prison budgets of additional months in
prison is clear when multiplied out by
thousands of prisoners.
However, the additional cost may be
well worth it if longer prison terms
effectively reduce the total number of
crimes offenders will commit both through

incapacitation and deterrence (see sidebar).
The question for policy makers is not
whether the total cost is high, but whether
increasing time served is the most costeffective means of promoting public safety.
The most common and accessible measure
of how effectively imprisonment reduces
crime is the recidivism rate. Holding
everything constant, if increasing LOS
has been a beneficial policy intervention,
offenders serving more time in prison
should have lower recidivism rates than
those serving less time.
But this is surprisingly difficult to
measure. Offenders with different levels
of time served are different in terms of
their criminal histories, the levels of
seriousness of their crimes, and many
other characteristics that affect their
probability of reoffending. In addition, age
has been shown to affect the likelihood of
committing more crimes; offenders who
spend longer in prison are more likely to
have aged out of criminal behavior by the
time they are released.28 Because of these
systematic differences between groups, it is
very difficult to accurately identify whether
differences in recidivism are based on the

Time Served: The High Cost, Low Return of Longer Prison Terms

33

What Do We Gain from Increased Time Served?

Incapacitation, Deterrence,
and Length of Stay
Incapacitation: Reducing current criminal involvement by holding offenders in prison
where they cannot commit crimes against the public.
Deterrence: Reducing the likelihood of future criminal involvement by increasing the
punishment for the current offense.
There are two methods by which increasing time spent in prison could impact
public safety: incapacitation and deterrence. Incapacitation is a guaranteed method
of ensuring an individual offender does not commit additional crimes. However,
incarcerating people comes at substantial cost and the number of crimes averted
by locking someone up will vary greatly by offender and offense type. Deterrence,
on the other hand, is a theory rather than a guarantee. Deterrence theory suggests
that offenders who are punished more harshly are less likely to commit crimes in the
future because they will want to avoid the prospect of repeat punishment.
The interaction between length of stay (LOS) and incapacitation and/or deterrence is
complex. An increase in LOS will obviously result in an offender being incapacitated
longer, but the additional weeks or months may be associated with a diminishing
beneficial impact on crime rates. Additional time served also may be related to a
declining deterrent effect and, in some cases, actually could contribute to criminal
offending after release. This dynamic is the foundation of the argument that prisons
are “schools of crime.”29 Thus, the return on investment becomes questionable.
This underscores the need to subject LOS to a rigorous analysis, paying particular
attention to key offender characteristics that may be correlated with an increased risk
of re-offending.

amount of time offenders serve or on the
underlying characteristics that lead them
to serve different amounts of time.30 While
researchers have attempted to answer this
question for years, they have not found
any consistent effect.31
Several recent studies have attempted
to account for these analytical

34

Pew Center on the States

problems by using sophisticated
statistical techniques to identify
offenders with similar characteristics
who are serving different lengths
of stay in prison. These more
methodologically sophisticated studies
still find no significant effect, positive
or negative, of longer prison terms on
recidivism rates.32

What Do We Gain from Increased Time Served?

Looking to the Past to
Inform the Future
While prior research has struggled to
accurately measure the aggregate impact
of LOS on criminal offending, there is
promise in understanding the impact of
time served by looking at past criminal
offending trajectory patterns as a model
for future outcomes. Researchers cannot
predict future behavior with perfect
accuracy, but they can create trajectories
of individual offending behavior that
will closely resemble what individuals
might have done had they not been
incarcerated.33 These modeled trajectories
are created using detailed information
on past arrest history and individual
characteristics.34 Once created, these
trajectories of individual behavior can be
compared to actual individual behavior
post-release to estimate the number of
crimes prevented by incarceration—both
those prevented through incapacitation
and those prevented through deterrence.35
To explore this approach using data
from states with different sentencing
structures and practices, Pew collected
incarceration and arrest data for
release cohorts in three states: Florida,
Maryland, and Michigan. Many policy
makers, community members, and law
enforcement professionals are justifiably
concerned about any potential reductions
in prison terms for people who committed
violent crimes. As a result, the current
policy discussion in most states focuses

on reforms to time served for non-violent
offenders. With this in mind, this analysis
concentrates on offenders who were not
incarcerated for a violent crime. Rearrest
rates for this group of offenders varied
greatly among these states; in Florida
28 percent of offenders convicted of
non-violent crimes were not rearrested
during the three years after release, with
corresponding numbers of 33 percent in
Maryland and 57 percent in Michigan.
The model trajectories described above
are used to identify which of those
offenders who were not rearrested could
have been released some period of time
earlier without any loss of incapacitation
or deterrence. Rather than seeking to
compare similarly situated offenders, this
approach uses criminal history-based
arrest trajectories for offenders in each
release cohort as a counterfactual to
predict what they would have done had
they not been incarcerated, or had they
been incarcerated for a shorter period of
time. This approach allows us to evaluate
how many crimes an offender would have
committed had he or she served less time
in prison.

Thousands Could Serve
Shorter Terms without
Impacting Public Safety
Modeling future criminal offending
using past arrest history and other
factors permits an estimation of the
impact of reducing LOS on public safety.

Time Served: The High Cost, Low Return of Longer Prison Terms

35

What Do We Gain from Increased Time Served?

Figure 8

Thousands Could Serve
Less Time
In three states, a large percentage of non-violent
offenders experienced no incapacitation or
deterrent effect from imprisonment. Many other
offenders experienced some positive effect at the
beginning of their prison terms but reached a
point when additional LOS provided no future
incapacitation or deterrent effect.
High-risk
offenders
Prison provided
no public safety
benefit
No loss of additional
public safety benefit
from reduced LOS

MARYLAND

14%
497

Non-violent
release
cohort
3,532

33%
19%
673

67%
2,362

MICHIGAN

27%
1,914

43%
3,008

1,771

FLORIDA

28%*

9%

Non-violent
release
cohort
20,790

20%
4,072

72%

14,947

*Detail does not add to total because percentages
are rounded.
SOURCE: Pew Center on the States, 2012.

36

Pew Center on the States

The analysis found that a significant
portion of the state prison populations
could have been released sooner with
no impact on public safety. Looking at
only non-violent offenders, 14 percent
of the Florida release cohort, 18 percent
of the Maryland cohort, and 24 percent
of the Michigan cohort could have been
safely released after serving between
three months and two years less time
behind bars.

57%

30%
2,119

Non-violent
release
cohort
7,041

The initial step was to identify offenders
in the 2004 release cohort who posed
low risk of rearrest upon release. For
this step a traditional risk assessment
instrument was developed and applied
in each of the three states. Among the
groups of low-risk offenders, the next
step was to use the trajectory models to
identify reductions in LOS that would
not compromise public safety.

As seen in Table 6, the model identifies
different reductions in the LOS based on
risk of re-offending. The amount of time
suggested to be taken off an offender’s
sentence could be thought of as the
point at which an offender tips into
being low risk.
If the offenders in this analysis had
been released on the schedule the
model suggests, the prison populations
would have been reduced by 2,640
in Florida, 770 in Maryland, and
3,280 in Michigan. Based on the 2004
populations as estimated from the size of
the current release cohort and its average

What Do We Gain from Increased Time Served?

LOS, these reductions amount to nearly
3 percent of the average daily population
for Florida, 5 percent for Maryland, and 6
percent for Michigan.

However these numbers are predicted to
be quite small, with 8 to 11 percent of each
group of non-violent offenders rearrested in
this time. Among the offenders suggested for
release by the model, 1 to 2 percent would be
rearrested for violent crimes, accounting for
0.04 percent of all violent crimes in Florida
and Maryland and 0.2 percent of violent
crimes in Michigan.

These reductions represent substantial cost
savings in each state. While this model was
not available and actually could not have been
applied in 2004, if it had been, Florida would
have saved $54 million, Maryland would have
saved $30 million, and Michigan would have
saved $92 million.

While the analysis indicates that some
released offenders will commit crimes during
the period immediately following release, that
does not mean policy makers are powerless to
stop them. Research shows that offenders are
frequently at the greatest risk of reoffending

No risk assessment is perfect. Some of these
offenders, if released, would recidivate during
the period before their original parole date.
Table 6

Impact of Risk Analysis on Average Time Served, Average Daily Population

363

94.8

70.8

726

Percentage
rearrested

Reduced
ADP

4.2%

Reduced
ADP

New

96

New

Number
identified

53.8

20.1%

224

129.3

105.3

448

21.4%

Current

Percentage
rearrested

77.8

Average
LOS

Number
identified

Reduced
ADP

48

Current

New

Average
LOS

Current

Average
LOS

Florida

Number
identified
24 months

Michigan
Percentage
rearrested

Maryland

18 months

74

52.6

34.6

111

2.7%

709

40.6

22.6

1,064

16.9%

85

61.7

43.7

128

23.5%

12 months

144

33.6

21.6

144

6.9%

882

33.4

21.4

882

10.8%

264

45.1

33.1

264

22.0%

9 months

273

21.6

12.6

205

10.3%

456

20.1

11.1

342

8.3%

654

28.0

19.0

491

15.6%

6 months

371

11.6

5.6

186

10.5%

402

16.4

10.4

201

5.2%

2,022

17.1

11.1

1,011

11.3%

3 months

106

7.3

4.3

27

2.8%

234

9.8

6.8

59

3.8%

1,112

10.6

7.6

278

4.6%

2 months

6

2.5

0.0

1

0.0%

31

2.6

0.0

7

0.0%

63

2.5

0.0

13

6.3%

1 month

6

1.5

0.0

1

0.0%

1

2.0

0.0

0

0.0%

48

1.5

0.0

6

0.0%

8

0.6

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.2

0.0

< 1 month
Total

1,036

0

0.0%

2

770

8.1%

3,080

0

0.0%

72

3,280

9.3%

4,544

1

2.8%

2,640

11.3%

NOTES: Table 6 shows, for each group of offenders that the model identifies for release before their original parole dates, their current LOS, their
average LOS after the model’s proposed reduction, and how these changes would impact the Average Daily Population (ADP) of the prison system. As
suggested by the model, 371 non-violent offenders in Maryland could have been released six months before their original parole dates, reducing their
average LOS from 11.6 to 5.6 months. Because these offenders would have served six months less time, they would have reduced the ADP by half a
year each, for a total change of 186 bed-years. The final column of Table 6 shows what percentage of these offenders would be rearrested within the
period before their original release date.
SOURCE: Pew Center on the States, 2012.

Time Served: The High Cost, Low Return of Longer Prison Terms

37

What Do We Gain from Increased Time Served?

in the early weeks and months after
release. Any adjustments to time served
should be made in concert with policies
and practices shown to reduce recidivism.
These include beginning release
preparations early in an offender’s prison
term, providing comprehensive pre-release
planning and support, linking the offender
with services at the time of release, using
a validated risk-needs instrument to
target supervision levels appropriately
in the community, and responding
swiftly and certainly to violations of the
supervision rules. The right mix of policy
interventions coupled with a reduction in
time served for selected offenders can be
expected to reduce the already low risk of
reoffending.36

38

Pew Center on the States

If large numbers of inmates could serve
shorter terms with little or no impact
on public safety, policy makers would
be wise to subject time served in their
states to a rigorous analysis, focusing
on identifying levels of time served that
maximize crime prevention. For higherrisk offenders, analysis could indicate
a need for longer terms. The research
in this study underscores that there is
a point when offenders become a low
risk for release and more time served
does not result in additional crimes
prevented through either incapacitation
or deterrence. At that point, greater time
served begins to provide diminishing
returns in crimes prevented at a
substantial cost to taxpayers.

How States Are Modifying
Length of Stay
During the past decade, a number of states
have undertaken reforms intended to
stem the growth in length of stay (LOS).
Some have taken steps aggressive enough
to actually reverse the direction of time
served for certain offense types. Recent
opinion polling suggests that these reforms
are being received well by a public whose
priority is preventing recidivism, rather
than indiscriminately requiring offenders
to serve longer prison terms (see sidebar).
Below we summarize a wide variety of
recent changes to policy and practices
STATE STRATEGIES FOR
REDUCING PRISON TERMS
1 Reclassifying Offense Types
2 Amending Mandatory Minimum

Sentencing Laws

3 Using Risk-Based Sentencing
4 Expanding Earned-Time

Opportunities

5 Changing Parole Policy and Practice
6 Making Administrative Changes

to Parole

7 Enacting Revocation Caps

that have been adopted by state
legislatures; carried out within the
executive branch by governors, parole
boards, or corrections departments; or
administered by judiciary branches.
STATE STRATEGIES FOR
REDUCING PRISON TERMS

Reclassifying Offense Types

1 Reclassifying Offense Types

2 Amending Mandatory Minimum

Several
states
have reclassified or redefined
Sentencing
Laws
3 Using Risk-Based
criminal
offensesSentencing
in recent years; such
Earned-Time
4 Expanding
changes
impact
sentence length and,
Opportunities
ultimately, LOS in prison. In many
5 Changing Parole Policy and Practice
states, the monetary value of stolen
6 Making Administrative Changes
goods
necessary to trigger a felony was
to Parole
7 Enacting Revocation
established
decadesCaps
ago and has not been
adjusted to keep pace with inflation. The
result is that someone can have a longer
sentence for a property crime today for
the theft of less valuable material goods
than in the past. In 2010, South Carolina
revised several offense definitions and
increased the monetary value threshold
that triggers a felony charge for certain
property offenses. A number of other
states—including Alabama (2003),
Arkansas (2011), California (2009),
Delaware (2009), Montana (2009), and
Washington (2009)—also have raised the
felony threshold dollar amount for various
theft offenses.

Time Served: The High Cost, Low Return of Longer Prison Terms

39

How States Are Modifying Length of Stay

BROAD Public Support for Reduced Non-violent
Prison Stays
State policy makers seeking to reduce prison costs while maintaining public safety often look to
reduced sentences for non-violent offenders as a policy remedy. In 2010 and again in 2012, Pew
partnered with leading national public opinion research firms to assess public support for a variety
of such reforms. The research found widespread support for shorter sentences and alternatives to
incarceration for non-violent crimes, especially when prison savings are reinvested in less costly
supervision options.

All the approaches examined to reduce prison time served are broadly acceptable to voters.
Voters strongly support reducing prison time for low-risk, non-violent offenders for a variety of reasons:
Total Accept

Strongly Accept
For completion of programs

63%

86%

To keep violent offenders locked up

62%

85%

To re-invest in alternatives

61 %

85%

For good behavior
To close budget deficits
For age or illness

83%

55%

78%

45%

77%

50%

A large majority of voters favors shortening prison terms for non-violent offenders by a full year.
“Allow non-violent crime inmates to be released up to 6 [or] 12 months early if they have behaved well
and are considered a low risk for committing another crime.”
Up to 6 months
Up to 12 months

64%
58%

86%
87%

Nearly all voters prioritize preventing recidivism over time served, even when prison time varies
up to a year.
“It does not matter whether a non-violent offender is in prison for 18 or 24 or 30 months [or] 21 or 24 or
27 months. What really matters is that the system does a better job of making sure that when an offender
does get out, he is less likely to commit another crime.”
18 or 24 or 30 months

66%

SOURCE: On behalf of the Pew Center on the States, Public Opinion Strategies and the Mellman Group conducted phone
interviews with 1,200 likely voters nationwide on January 10–15, 2012. The survey has a margin of error of ±2.8 percent.

40

Pew Center on the States

87 %

How States Are Modifying Length of Stay

Drug offenses also have been a target of
recent legislative reform, as states revisit
their criminal code with the goal of
establishing proportionality in sentencing.
Frequently, lawmakers implemented these
changes by adjusting the quantities that
trigger different levels of punishment. In
many cases, lawmakers kept penalties the
same or increased them for more serious
drug offenses, but reduced sentences
for lower-level sales and possession.
Arkansas (2011), Colorado (2010), and
Kentucky (2011) passed reforms to better
distinguish among serious drug trafficking,
lower-level sales, and drug possession.
This was achieved by revising quantity
triggers for certain felony definitions and
classifications. While relaxing the penalties
for lower-level offenses, these states
retained or enhanced the penalties for more
serious drug offenses. In Colorado, some
offenses were reclassified as misdemeanors,
while Kentucky modified the penalty
for simple drug possession and now
allows courts to divert first-and secondtime drug possession offenders from
prison through deferred prosecution or a
presumptive probation sentence. Kentucky
also eliminated sentence enhancements
for second-time and subsequent drug
offenses. The savings from modest changes
to felony classifications can be substantial.
In Colorado, these reforms were projected
to save the state $1.5 million in FY 2010
and $6 million in FY 2011. The legislature
earmarked the savings for reinvestment in
the state’s Drug Offender Treatment Fund.

Victim Advocates
Speak Out on
Time Served
More than 100 leading national
and state crime victim advocates
and survivors have signed on to a
statement of guiding principles on
sentencing, corrections, and public
safety. One of the seven principles
speaks directly to the issue of time
served in prison:
“While it is important for
offenders to receive just
punishment, the quantity of
time that convicted offenders
serve under any form of
correctional supervision must
be balanced with the quality of
evidence-based assessment,
treatment, programming and
supervision they receive that can
change their criminal behavior
and thinking and reduce
the likelihood that they will
commit future crimes. For many
offenses and offenders, shorter
prison terms are acceptable
if the resulting cost savings
are reinvested in evidencebased programs that reduce
recidivism.”
The full text of the principles and a
list of the signatories is available here.
http://www.pewcenteronthestates.
org/uploadedFiles/
wwwpewcenteronthestatesorg/
Initiatives/PSPP/Pew_Guiding_
Principles_for_Crime_Victims_and_
Survivors.pdf

Time Served: The High Cost, Low Return of Longer Prison Terms

41

How States Are Modifying Length of Stay

STATE STRATEGIES FOR
REDUCING PRISON TERMS
1 Reclassifying Offense Types

 mending Mandatory
A
Minimum
Sentencing
Using
Risk-Based Sentencing
Expanding
Laws Earned-Time
Opportunities

2 Amending Mandatory Minimum

Sentencing Laws

3
4

Changing Parole
Policyin
and
Practice
5 discussed
As
earlier
the
report,
6 Making Administrative
mandatory
minimumChanges
sentencing has
to Parole
been a hallmark of efforts to extend time
7 Enacting Revocation Caps
served in recent decades. Legislatures
that passed these laws were seeking to
add both severity to sentence length and
predictability to the sentencing process.
More recently, some states have begun
to roll back their mandatory minimum
laws following criticism that they block
appropriate judicial discretion and cost
too much. New York’s “Rockefeller Drug
Laws” are some of the oldest and most
widely known mandatory sentencing
laws, dating back to 1973. In 2009,
the legislature eliminated mandatory
minimums for certain first- and secondtime non-violent drug offenses. The state
also reduced minimum penalties for
specific felonies and gave judges authority
to retroactively modify sentences for
about 1,500 offenders.

While the Rockefeller Drug Laws may
represent the most high-profile reform
of mandatory minimum sentences in
the past decade, reforms in Michigan
may have been the most far-reaching.
In 2002, the legislature repealed most
mandatory minimums for drug offenders,
shifting drug sentencing to the state
guidelines. This change was estimated
to save $41 million in the year following
passage. Approximately 1,200 offenders

42

Pew Center on the States

in Michigan prisons became eligible for
parole upon adoption of the law, while
another 7,000 individuals were eligible
for release from lifetime probation after
completing five years of supervision.
Delaware (2003), Indiana (2001), and
STATE STRATEGIES
Minnesota
(2009)FOR
also have amended
REDUCING PRISON TERMS
various mandatory minimum drug
1 Reclassifying Offense Types
sentencing laws.
2 Amending Mandatory Minimum

Sentencing Laws

Using Risk-Based
Expanding Earned-Time
Sentencing
Opportunities

3 Using Risk-Based Sentencing
4

5 Changing Parole Policy and Practice
While
many of the efforts to address LOS
6 Making Administrative Changes
in prison
occur within the legislature or
to Parole
executive
branch, changes in court case
7 Enacting Revocation Caps
processing also have influenced sentence
length and time served. The Virginia
Criminal Sentencing Commission
(VCSC), for instance, developed a
risk assessment instrument to identify
candidates for diversion among nonviolent offenders. The instrument helps
the VCSC meet a statutory goal of
diverting 25 percent of property and drug
offenders who otherwise would have been
incarcerated. These alternative sentences
can include intensive probation, home
incarceration, electronic monitoring, day
reporting centers, and fines. The statistical
risk assessment provides estimates of
the likelihood an offender will commit
future crimes based on a number of
factors, including offender characteristics,
details of the current offense, and
adult and juvenile criminal history. An
evaluation of the risk instrument by the
National Center for State Courts and the

How States Are Modifying Length of Stay

VCSC found that it has proven to be a
reliable predictor of recidivism and that
Virginia’s approach has saved money by
reducing the number of offenders who
otherwise would have been sentenced to
STATE 37
STRATEGIES
A numberFOR
of other states also
prison.
REDUCING PRISON TERMS
have established a risk-based sentencing
1 Reclassifying Offense Types
system and are in various stages of
2 Amending Mandatory
38 Minimum
implementation.
Sentencing Laws
3 Using Risk-Based Sentencing

Expanding Earned-Time
Opportunities
Changing
Parole Policy and Practice

4 Expanding Earned-Time

Opportunities

5

6 Making Administrative Changes
In
addition
to focusing on laws that
to Parole
change
theRevocation
initial sentence
length, states
7 Enacting
Caps
also are creating new opportunities for
offenders to earn reductions in their
time served in prison. Kansas (2007)
and Colorado (2009) expanded earned
time for offenders who participate in
programs and avoid major disciplinary
violations. In Colorado, during the first
three years of implementation, the reform
was expected to save $12 million, which
will be reinvested in recidivism-reduction
programs beginning in 2012. In South
Carolina (2010), legislators required that
non-violent offenders serving a minimum
of two years in prison be released to
mandatory supervision 180 days prior to
release, rather than serving out every last
day of their sentences and returning to
the community with no supervision.

Pennsylvania took a different approach
to reducing LOS, moving the certainty
of a reduction in time served to the
sentencing phase. The “recidivism risk-

reduction incentive” (RRRI) law gives a
judge the option of sentencing certain
offenders to a shorter “risk reduction”
term of incarceration if they participate
in programming while in prison.
A 2012 report by the Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections found
that 8,076 admissions (26 percent)
were admitted with a RRRI minimum
sentence and 3,466 have been
subsequently released.39 Of those
persons released, 72 percent have
fulfilled all of the obligations necessary
to be released at the RRRI minimum
STATE STRATEGIES FOR
REDUCINGThe
PRISON
TERMS
sentence.
slight
reduction in time
served
is estimated
to have saved the
1 Reclassifying
Offense Types
state
approximately
$37.1 million,
Mandatory Minimum
2 Amending
Sentencing Laws
while reducing the prison population
3 Using Risk-Based Sentencing
by an estimated 1,628 offenders.
4 Expanding Earned-Time

Opportunities

 hanging Parole Policy
C
and
to
Parole Practice

5 Changing Parole Policy and Practice
6 Making Administrative Changes

7 Enacting Revocation Caps
In
many states, the parole board has a
significant impact on LOS, controlling
the back-end release decision within
parameters typically set by the
legislature. In some states, policy makers
are taking steps to amend parole policies
in ways that can affect time served in
prison. Mississippi (2008) lawmakers
amended their “truth-in-sentencing”
law to allow non-violent offenders to
apply for parole release after serving 25
percent of their sentence. The prior law
had required that all prisoners serve
85 percent of their sentence before
becoming eligible for parole.

Time Served: The High Cost, Low Return of Longer Prison Terms

43

How States Are Modifying Length of Stay
STATE STRATEGIES FOR
REDUCING PRISON TERMS

In Georgia, the State Board of Pardons
and Paroles in 1998 established a rule
that inmates convicted of any of 20
serious violent crimes must serve 90
percent of their court-ordered sentences.
Seven years later, while revising its
release guidelines and under legal
challenges
to the rule,
STATE STRATEGIES
FOR the board shifted
REDUCING PRISON TERMS
to a risk-based policy. The new release
1 Reclassifying
Offense
Types
guidelines
call
for low-risk
inmates
Amending
to2 serve
at Mandatory
least 65 Minimum
percent of their
Sentencing Laws
sentences and medium-risk inmates
3 Using Risk-Based Sentencing
to4 serve
75 percent, while high-risk
Expanding Earned-Time
Opportunities
prisoners remain at the 90 percent level.
5 Changing Parole Policy and Practice

Making Administrative
Changes
to
Parole
Enacting
Revocation
Caps

6 Making Administrative Changes

to Parole

7

Parole boards may lengthen time served
for administrative rather than for policy
reasons, as the number of offenders
eligible for review sometimes can
overwhelm the resources necessary to
process cases. This logjam can make the
parole review process highly inefficient,
but there are steps state officials have
taken to streamline the process. In 2003,
Alabama temporarily created a second
parole board to address a backlog in
applications and help relieve prison
overcrowding. South Carolina (2010)
sought to professionalize its parole board

44

Pew Center on the States

1 Reclassifying Offense Types
by
increasing training requirements for
2 Amending Mandatory Minimum
board
members.
Sentencing
Laws The state also increased
standardization
of the review process
3 Using Risk-Based Sentencing
when
it adopted
a requirement that a
Earned-Time
4 Expanding
Opportunities
validated risk and needs assessment be
5 Changing Parole Policy and Practice
used for release decisions.
6 Making Administrative Changes

to Parole

Enacting Revocation Caps

7 Enacting Revocation Caps

While time served usually is controlled
on the back end by release decisions,
how states address probation and parole
revocations has a demonstrable impact
on the prison population. Some states
have taken steps to reduce time served
by placing caps on how long someone
can serve in prison due to a revocation
of supervision. Colorado (2010) placed
a 180-day cap on the length of time
non-violent parolees can stay in prison
for a technical violation. This reform is
estimated to save the state $4.7 million
annually, which will be reinvested
in reentry services for parolees.
Alabama (2010) took a similar step for
probationers, capping the length of stay
at 90 days for non-violent probationers
who met the conditions of supervision
for a six-month period but were
subsequently revoked to prison. The
reform was retroactive and estimated to
impact 1,500 offenders in prison.

How States Are Modifying Length of Stay

Conclusion
Twenty years ago, there was little evidence
to counter the logic that longer prison
sentences were the most effective way to
combat crime and keep communities safe.
As a result, states adopted increasingly
tougher penalties for all categories of
offenders, prison populations exploded,
and correctional costs soared. Since that
era, a wave of research has revealed the
shortcomings of that strategy for lowerlevel offenders, and the public increasingly
favors alternative approaches proven to
reduce recidivism.
Fortunately, policy makers in every region
of the country now have a long list of
colleagues who have found solutions that
help to balance their budgets without

sacrificing public safety. These bipartisan
efforts across the country are not wild
experiments that put the public at risk.
Rather, they are grounded in research,
time-tested, and overdue.
The analysis in this study shows that
there are more savings that can be
garnered by thoughtfully addressing
sentence length and release decisions.
With the right risk assessment tools and
a careful evaluation of the dynamics
influencing their prison populations,
states can move with confidence down
this new path—one that recognizes that
simply putting as many people in prison
for as long as possible is not the best
way to spend public dollars and protect
public safety.

Time Served: The High Cost, Low Return of Longer Prison Terms

45

Appendix A: Estimating Length
of Stay by State
Data

which, although it had full data, did not
contain admissions data and therefore
This study relies primarily on data from the
could not be directly compared with the
National Corrections Reporting Program
others). A list of these states is available at
(NCRP) modules on prison releases and
pewstates.org/publicsafety.
prison standing populations. The NCRP is
a voluntary program through which states
To check the reliability of the NCRP
submit records for each admission and
data, Pew compared it to other
release from prison over the course of a
published sources of information on
calendar year. While each record represents prison populations and releases. NCRP
a person, individuals are not identified in
reports custody counts, meaning that it
the record and may be present twice in
includes records for all persons entering
an admission or release file. NCRP data
and exiting the state prison system,
are collected by the U.S. Census Bureau
regardless of the jurisdiction under
and cleaned and reviewed by the Bureau
which they were sentenced. This may
of Justice Statistics (BJS). They are housed
be partially responsible for substantial
for public use at the National Archive of
variation between the NCRP and other
Criminal Justice Data (NACJD), part of the published state numbers (the most widely
Inter-University Consortium for Political
used source of aggregate numbers for
and Social Research. Pew submitted a
state prison admissions, releases, and
request to the NACJD and received NCRP
populations are the National Prisoner
data from 1985 through 2009, with the
Statistics [NPS] series from the BJS, which
exception of a few years for which data
report jurisdiction counts) identified by
were not available.
John F. Pfaff in his 2009 paper on time
After cleaning the data and applying filters
as discussed below, Pew identified 36
states with sufficient data in the NCRP
to make estimates for the period 1990
to 2009 (35 states excluding Maryland,

served in prison.40
Nevertheless, Pew compared total releases
by state from the NCRP with release
numbers published in the NPS for the
years 1988 to 2009. In addition, Pew

Time Served: The High Cost, Low Return of Longer Prison Terms

47

Appendix A: Estimating Length of Stay by State

compared stock population numbers to
NPS population numbers from 2005 and
2009. Overall, states reporting in the 2009
NCRP provide 3 percent higher release
numbers than are reported in the NPS,
and 2 percent lower population numbers.
Pew found substantial variation between
NCRP and NPS total release numbers by
state. In four states (Alaska, Maryland,
North Carolina, and South Carolina) these
discrepancies were significantly reduced
when individuals with sentences less than
a year were removed from the release
cohort, indicating that they were probably
due to states submitting information
from unified prison/jail systems to NCRP.
Pew identified an additional four states
(Arkansas, Minnesota, Mississippi, and
Texas) in which the NPS 2005 Mid-Year
Report showed substantial variation
between prison population custody counts
and jurisdiction counts, indicating that
the structure of these state systems and/
or custody arrangements in the states
may have contributed to variation in
the custody and jurisdiction release
numbers as well. Of the 36 states Pew
used in the analysis, this left three with
substantial variation between NCRP
and NPS numbers (Georgia, Iowa, and
Washington).
Washington was the only remaining
problem state that also shows
discrepancies in the stock population
counts. When comparing NCRP
population data from 2005 with NPS

48

Pew Center on the States

custody and jurisdiction data, Pew
confirmed that the NCRP counts in Texas
and Minnesota more closely matched
NPS custody counts than jurisdiction
counts (with the Texas count matching
very closely). Arkansas NCRP population
counts showed discrepancies with both
forms of NPS counts, and will bear further
scrutiny as well. Mississippi did not report
stock population data in 2005 and so
cannot be directly compared.
In the early stages of the project,
Pew surveyed state departments of
corrections to determine whether gaps
in the NCRP could be filled directly
by states. While survey questions and
definitions were written to match
NCRP data collection, the aggregate
data submitted were not, ultimately,
comparable to NCRP results due to
difficulty in precisely matching filters,
queries, and offense categories.

Methodology
Pew estimated average (mean) sentence
length, average time served, and average
percentage of maximum sentence served
by exit cohort for each available year of
data from 1990 to 2009. These numbers
were estimated by state and offense
category.
Pew also calculated the expected time
served for 2005 and 2009 using the
reciprocal of the exit rate as suggested by
Patterson and Preston.41

Appendix A: Estimating Length of Stay by State

Pew was primarily interested in time
served by people sentenced to state prison
and released for the first time on the
current sentence (as opposed to people
who had served their sentence, been
released, and were re-incarcerated for a
parole violation). This group is generally
referred to as “first releases.” To limit the
analysis to first releases, Pew:
n

Dropped all records for which total
sentence (variable 34) was shorter
than 12 months in order to exclude
offenders who served a jail sentence
rather than a prison sentence but
were submitted to NCRP because of
unified jail/prison systems in some
states.42

n

Dropped all records in which
admission type (variable 16) was
not court commitment or probation
revocation (for most years there
are multiple codes for probation
revocation including “Suspended
sentence imposed” “Probation
revocation with new sentence”
“Probation revocation with no new
sentence” “Probation revocation, no
information regarding new sentence”
and “Probation status, pending
revocation”).

Admission type was missing in certain
states and years. In these states, Pew
imputed admission type using a logit
regression of admission type on offense
category and time served in prison in a
year with complete admissions data to

predict whether individual records were
likely to be new court commitments or
parole commitments. The predicted value
from the logit model was used to weight
records when calculating time served
and percentage of sentence served, so
that records that were more likely to be
first releases were given greater weight
in the calculation than records that were
more likely to be returned parolees. This
imputation was completed for records
in Mississippi, Nevada, New York,
North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee,
and Texas. See jurisdiction notes for the
specific years for which admissions data
were imputed in these states. Admission
type could not be imputed in Maryland
because there were no years in which
admission type was reported.
All records were then divided into four
offense categories defined as: violent,
property, drug, and other. Offenders were
placed in an offense category based on
the crime for which they received the
longest sentence (variable 32). These
offense categories were mutually exclusive,
and were based on the NCRP codebooks
for the years in question. A list of NCRP
offense codes from the 2009 NCRP
codebook, grouped by offense category,
is available upon request. In addition,
Pew created a flag for records in which
the offense with the longest sentence was
murder or homicide. This is a subset of the
violent offense category.

Time Served: The High Cost, Low Return of Longer Prison Terms

49

Appendix A: Estimating Length of Stay by State

Pew then did the following calculations for
each record:

n

Total sentence length
n

n

Sentence length refers to the
maximum sentence that an offender
may be required to serve for the
most serious offense. In the NCRP
data we used total sentence length
as calculated by BJS (variable 34).
This usually equals the maximum
sentence for the offense with the
longest possible sentence (variable
33). In some cases the total sentence
is higher, presumably reflecting
multiple offenses to be served
consecutively.
If variable 34 (total sentence) was
missing, we replaced it with variable
33 (maximum sentence).

n

Sentences longer than 1,500 months
(125 years) in variable 34 were
replaced by variable 33 if the value
was different and less than 1,500
months. If variable 33 was also over
1,500 months or was missing, these
sentences were marked as missing
and were not used in calculations.

n

Life sentences were counted as 30
years or 360 months.

Total time served
n

50

Total time served = Time served on
current admission (as measured by
difference between admission date
and release date) (variable 62) +
Prior jail time served credited to the
current sentence (variable 24).

Pew Center on the States

If prior jail time is missing, we
imputed it as the mean of jail time
for that year and offense category and
flagged the record. The year with the
most missing jail time records was
1990, when 32 percent of records
had imputed jail time. This number
went as low as 5 percent in 1998.
On average across years, about 19
percent of records required this
imputation.

Percentage of sentence served
n

Percentage of sentence served was
calculated as total time served
divided by total sentence as defined
above.

n

Percentage of sentence served was
allowed to be above 100 percent.

To create yearly estimates for each state/
year/offense category combination from
1990 to 2009, we used a centered moving
average within each state and offense
category comprising one year before,
the current year, and one year in the
future. If one of these time periods was
unavailable, the other two were still used.
If two or more were unavailable, we used
any periods available within two years on
either side of the year in question. Though
we created estimates only for 1990 on, we
used 1989 data when available to create
1990 estimates.
The later years posed a problem because
we had available only 2005, 2008, and
2009. To be as conservative as possible

Appendix A: Estimating Length of Stay by State

while bridging this gap, we calculated
2005 estimates using 2004, 2005, and
2008; 2008 estimates using 2005, 2008,
and 2009; and 2009 estimates using 2008
and 2009.
Standard errors were calculated using the
entire three-year period upon which the
average was calculated. If fewer years were
used in the calculation then the standard
errors will be larger (because they rely on a
smaller number of records).
These moving average estimates by state,
year, and offense type were made for:
Sentence length
n Time served
n Percentage of sentence served
n

We estimated the number of releases in
each year by offense category and the
stock population in each offense category
at the end of year.
n

Count of releases = The number of
individual records in the release file
of the NCRP that fit the above filters.

n

Stock population = The number of
individual records in the stock file
of the NCRP that fit the above filters
(available only for 2005 and 2009).

Finally, Pew reviewed each state’s data
looking for inconsistencies and outliers
both in the individual-level data and in
the aggregate counts and averages. Any
problems with specific states, years, or
variables were flagged for follow-up. In

cases where data were systematically
unreliable within a particular state and
year, the problem variable or state/year
combination was discarded and when
possible replaced with estimates from
other years.
Expected Time Served

For the purposes of creating the expected
time served measure, Pew weighted the
total number of releases and stock to fit
counts released through the NPS series.
These may vary for the reasons discussed
above (custody vs. jurisdiction) but
because they have been independently
validated, we believed they were
more appropriate for the purpose of
extrapolating totals. Thus we created a
weight for each observation based on the
ratio of the NPS total (either releases or
stock population) and the NCRP total.
These weights were created based on the
total NCRP file (all releases) to match the
NPS as closely as possible. NCRP files were
then filtered as described above to include
only “first releases” and releases and stock
population totals were calculated using the
weights created above. Because we looked
at first releases, our totals do not equal the
NPS totals, however ours were weighted to
consistently fit with NPS reports.
Expected time served was calculated as
the reciprocal of the exit rate, that is by
dividing the weighted stock population by
the weighted number of releases for each
year and offense category. This measure

Time Served: The High Cost, Low Return of Longer Prison Terms

51

Appendix A: Estimating Length of Stay by State

can be adjusted for population growth;
however, this adjustment does not make
a significant difference in the results and
therefore was not used.43 To make it
comparable to the average time served
measure, which included jail time, Pew
then adjusted the expected time served
to include the average time spent in jail
counted toward an individual’s sentence by
year and offense category.
Standard errors for the expected time
served measure were calculated using the
delta method, which uses a first-order
Taylor series approximation to calculate
the variances of a transformed variable.
Jurisdiction Notes

Maryland: Had no admission type data
for any year, meaning Pew was unable to
exclude parolees. We therefore report the
trends for Maryland but not the absolute
values of time served.
Missouri: There were no data on time
served for 2004, so it was estimated from
other available years.
Mississippi: Had no admission type
information for the years 1994, 1995,
1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and
2001. Each record in these years was
assigned a probability of being a first
release as described above based on data
from 2002.

52

Pew Center on the States

Nevada: Had no admission type
information for the years 1994, 1995,
1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001.
Each record in these years was assigned
a probability of being a first release as
described above based on data from 2002.
New York: Had no admission type
information for the years 1989, 1990,
1991, 1992, 1993, and 1994. Each record
in these years was assigned a probability
of being a first release as described above
based on data from 1995.
North Carolina: Had no admission type
information for the years 1995, 1996,
1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002,
2003, 2004, 2005, 2008, and 2009.
Each record in these years was assigned
a probability of being a first release as
described above based on data from 1992,
1993, and 1994. Three years were used for
the imputation due to small sample sizes.
Ohio: Due to irregularities in the 2002
data, information from that year was
dropped.
Oklahoma: Had no admission type
information for the years 1991, 1992,
1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998,
1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002. Each record
in these years was assigned a probability
of being a first release as described above
based on data from 2005, due to issues
with 2003 and 2004 data.

Appendix A: Estimating Length of Stay by State

Oregon: Had no admission type
information for the years 1989, 1990,
1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2008.
Each record in these years was assigned
a probability of being a first release as
described above based on data from 1997
and 2002.

Tennessee: Had no admission type
information for the years 1989, 1990,
and 1991. Each record in these years
was assigned a probability of being a first
release as described above based on data
from 1995 and 1996 due to issues with
1992, 1993, and 1994 data.

Pennsylvania: Had no admission type
information for the years 1994, 1995,
1996, and 1997. Each record in these
years was assigned a probability of being
a first release as described above based on
data from 1998.

Texas: Had no admission type information
for the years 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992,
1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998.
Each record in these years was assigned
a probability of being a first release as
described above based on data from 2001
due to issues with 1999 and 2000 data.

South Carolina: Had no admission type
information for the years 1994, 1995,
1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001.
Each record in these years was assigned
a probability of being a first release as
described above based on data from 2002.

Time Served: The High Cost, Low Return of Longer Prison Terms

53

Appendix A: Estimating Length of Stay by State

Tables A1, A2, A3, and A4 present estimates for every five years, by state and offense type.
These estimates include 95 percent confidence intervals, calculated as described above.
Expected time served also is included when it was calculable from available data.
Appendix Table A1

Time
served

+/–

Time
served

+/–

Time
served

ALABAMA

2.24

0.04

2.42

0.04

2.44

0.04

2.8

0.04

2.86

0.05

ARKANSAS

1.88

0.05

2.05

0.04

2.14

0.04

3

0.05

3.18

0.04

2.69

0.06

3.82

0.1

CALIFORNIA

1.93

0.01

2.03

0.01

2.57

0.01

2.78

0.02

2.91

0.02

4.18

0.03

4.38

0.04

COLORADO

2.22

0.04

2.35

0.04

2.53

0.04

2.89

0.04

2.94

0.05

4.07

0.09

FLORIDA

1.13

0.01

2.64

0.02

3.37

0.02

3.12

0.02

3

0.03

2.33

0.02

3.09

0.03

GEORGIA

1.82

0.02

2.02

0.02

2.97

0.04

3.37

0.03

3.18

0.04

3.95

0.06

4.02

0.06

HAWAII

3.68

0.17

2.32

0.1

2.5

0.09

3.13

0.12

3.11

0.15

ILLINOIS

2.21

0.02

1.98

0.02

1.69

0.02

1.66

0.03

IOWA

2.19

0.04

2.23

0.04

2.41

0.04

2.22

0.04

2.44

0.06

2.52

0.06

3.59

0.12

KENTUCKY

1.52

0.04

1.73

0.03

1.94

0.03

1.71

0.03

LOUISIANA

2.79

0.08

2.44

0.04

2.74

0.06

2.64

0.04

2.54

0.04

3.73

0.06

3.42

0.05

MICHIGAN

2.39

0.03

2.98

0.04

3.49

0.05

4.07

0.05

4.28

0.1

7.41

0.15

MINNESOTA

1.69

0.05

1.91

0.05

1.87

0.04

2.28

0.04

2.34

0.05

2.63

0.06

2.51

0.06

MISSISSIPPI

1.94

0.05

2.06

0.05

2.37

0.05

2.07

0.07

MISSOURI

2.42

0.04

1.84

0.04

1.56

0.03

1.99

0.04

2.08

0.04

3.01

0.05

3.26

0.05

NEBRASKA

2.21

0.09

1.83

0.07

2.09

0.07

2.01

0.07

2.08

0.08

NEVADA

2.84

0.07

2.89

0.06

2.71

0.05

2.76

0.05

2.45

0.06

NEW HAMPSHIRE

2.44

0.12

2.44

0.1

2.79

0.11

3.08

0.16

NEW JERSEY

2.38

0.03

2.16

0.02

2.54

0.03

2.58

0.03

2.96

0.05

NEW YORK

3.52

0.02

2.47

0.02

3.16

0.03

3.52

0.03

3.6

0.05

5.09

0.07

4.84

0.07

NORTH CAROLINA

1.44

0.02

1.44

0.02

2.35

0.03

2.55

0.04

2.68

0.05

4.38

0.08

4.26

0.07

NORTH DAKOTA

1.32

0.09

1.33

0.08

1.5

0.06

1.45

0.09

2.04

0.14

1.87

0.09

OHIO

1.93

0.02

1.78

0.02

5.45

0.06

OKLAHOMA

1.67

0.04

2.07

0.04

3.17

0.05

3.25

0.05

3.06

0.05

3.38

0.06

3.7

0.07

OREGON

2.45

0.07

1.81

0.05

2.71

0.08

3.28

0.08

3.24

0.1

5.13

0.17

6.24

0.23

PENNSYLVANIA

2.87

0.05

3.44

0.05

4.01

0.05

3.72

0.05

3.8

0.06

6.18

0.12

7.34

0.15

SOUTH CAROLINA

1.74

0.03

1.94

0.03

2.3

0.03

2.24

0.03

2.32

0.04

3.12

0.06

3.32

0.06

SOUTH DAKOTA

1.72

0.21

1.76

0.1

1.88

0.09

1.42

0.05

1.31

0.06

TENNESSEE

2.08

0.05

1.04

0.02

1.86

0.03

1.92

0.03

1.94

0.03

3.01

0.05

2.81

0.04

TEXAS

2.12

0.01

2.61

0.02

3.81

0.02

2.58

0.02

2.81

0.02

3.47

0.02

3.19

0.02

UTAH

2.57

0.08

2.24

0.07

2.7

0.1

2.64

0.07

2.99

0.1

VIRGINIA

1.74

0.03

1.92

0.03

2.69

0.03

2.77

0.03

3.33

0.05

3.19

0.05

WASHINGTON

1.92

0.04

2.06

0.04

2.12

0.03

2.14

0.03

2.44

0.04

4.33

0.11

1.19

0.01

WEST VIRGINIA

2.05

0.1

1.79

0.1

2.04

0.1

2.66

0.08

3.1

0.09

WISCONSIN

2.49

0.05

2.04

0.03

2.45

0.03

2.93

0.05

4.22

0.09

SOURCE: Pew Center on the States, 2012.

54

+/–

+/–

Expected 2009

+/–

Expected 2005

Time
served

Average 2009

+/–

Average 2005

Time
served

Average 2000

+/–

Average 1995

Time
served

Average 1990

Time
served

Confidence Intervals for Time Served Estimates, All Crimes

Pew Center on the States

Appendix A: Estimating Length of Stay by State

Appendix Table A2

Confidence Intervals for Time Served Estimates, Violent CRIMES
Time
served

+/–

Time
served

+/–

Time
served

+/–

Time
served

+/–

Expected 2009

+/–

Expected 2005

Time
served

Average 2009

+/–

Average 2005

Time
served

Average 2000

+/–

Average 1995

Time
served

Average 1990

ALABAMA

4.37

0.16

4.34

0.16

4.45

0.16

5.84

0.18

6.03

0.23

ARKANSAS

3.64

0.18

4.97

0.22

4.15

0.15

5.15

0.18

5.14

0.16

5.69

0.34

8.27

0.54

CALIFORNIA

2.83

0.03

3.03

0.02

3.73

0.04

4.2

0.04

4.61

0.06

6.7

0.11

7.05

0.11

COLORADO

3.07

0.13

3.5

0.13

3.8

0.12

4.4

0.13

4.57

0.17

7.12

0.34

FLORIDA

2.1

0.05

3.74

0.05

4.79

0.06

5.04

0.07

4.99

0.08

3.81

0.06

5.24

0.1

GEORGIA

4.01

0.08

3.86

0.08

4.75

0.1

5.79

0.1

5.64

0.11

7.22

0.22

7.69

0.23

HAWAII

5.46

0.46

5.14

0.34

4.36

0.35

5.91

0.44

6.17

0.6

ILLINOIS

3.79

0.07

3.66

0.06

3.48

0.07

3.79

0.14

IOWA

3.47

0.16

3.35

0.12

3.77

0.13

3.77

0.18

3.89

0.23

4.44

0.3

6.34

0.49

KENTUCKY

2.49

0.11

2.91

0.11

3.41

0.1

3.56

0.13

LOUISIANA

5.36

0.27

4.56

0.14

6.54

0.32

5.31

0.18

5.28

0.22

8.97

0.43

9.06

0.41

MICHIGAN

3.85

0.08

4.75

0.09

5.91

0.11

7.29

0.13

7.57

0.22

12.17

0.48

MINNESOTA

2.38

0.11

2.69

0.1

2.78

0.09

3.14

0.11

3.18

0.15

3.56

0.16

3.67

0.16

MISSISSIPPI

3.86

0.15

3.88

0.15

4.74

0.16

3.97

0.28

MISSOURI

4.91

0.14

2.95

0.18

3.71

0.15

4.75

0.17

4.82

0.17

6.53

0.29

7.5

0.31

NEBRASKA

3.89

0.28

2.89

0.18

3.34

0.2

3.29

0.2

3.33

0.24

NEVADA

5.78

0.24

5.1

0.2

4.83

0.18

4.72

0.16

4.37

0.19

NEW HAMPSHIRE

3.06

0.37

3.5

0.27

4.06

0.23

4.43

0.39

NEW JERSEY

3.53

0.07

3.45

0.07

4.33

0.08

4.68

0.12

5.58

0.22

NEW YORK

4.88

0.05

3.61

0.05

5.04

0.07

5.63

0.08

6.04

0.12

7.74

0.21

6.99

0.19

NORTH CAROLINA

2.96

0.08

2.58

0.07

3.72

0.08

4.33

0.1

4.58

0.13

6.39

0.21

6.28

0.2

NORTH DAKOTA

2.11

0.31

2.01

0.24

2.14

0.18

2.18

0.28

2.95

0.45

2.66

0.27

OHIO

3.38

0.06

3.09

0.07

7.57

0.11

3.4

0.15

3.74

0.17

4.99

0.16

5.03

0.16

4.55

0.17

7.26

0.36

6.36

0.28

OREGON

3.84

0.13

2.82

0.1

4.15

0.16

4.97

0.14

5.03

0.17

6.28

0.3

8.31

0.45

PENNSYLVANIA

4.13

0.1

5

0.12

5.77

0.09

5.88

0.11

5.95

0.14

9.34

0.34

11.13

0.42

SOUTH CAROLINA

3.32

0.12

3.54

0.12

4.14

0.13

4.01

0.12

4

0.15

5.99

0.26

6.23

0.27

SOUTH DAKOTA

3.19

0.88

3.52

0.35

3.63

0.3

2.97

0.24

2.53

0.27

OKLAHOMA

TENNESSEE

2.63

0.13

1.43

0.05

3.56

0.09

3.74

0.09

3.71

0.11

5.11

0.17

4.93

0.16

TEXAS

3.67

0.05

4.81

0.08

5.25

0.05

4.83

0.05

5.27

0.07

6.84

0.1

6.23

0.1

UTAH

4.21

0.19

4.25

0.22

5.22

0.28

5.17

0.23

5.55

0.26

VIRGINIA

3.58

0.12

3.41

0.1

4.63

0.12

4.82

0.12

6.01

0.17

5.8

0.17

WASHINGTON

2.62

0.08

3.01

0.1

3.44

0.09

3.78

0.11

4.19

0.14

7.78

0.45

2.14

0.05

WEST VIRGINIA

3.03

0.23

2.88

0.28

3.62

0.29

4.24

0.26

4.7

0.3

WISCONSIN

3.53

0.13

2.92

0.09

3.96

0.1

4.79

0.15

8

0.4

SOURCE: Pew Center on the States, 2012.

Time Served: The High Cost, Low Return of Longer Prison Terms

55

Appendix A: Estimating Length of Stay by State

Appendix Table A3

Confidence Intervals for Time Served Estimates, Property Crimes
Time
served

+/–

Time
served

+/–

Time
served

+/–

Time
served

+/–

Expected 2009

+/–

Expected 2005

Time
served

Average 2009

+/–

Average 2005

Time
served

Average 2000

+/–

Average 1995

Time
served

Average 1990

ALABAMA

1.92

0.04

2.07

0.05

2.15

0.04

2.37

0.05

2.41

0.06

ARKANSAS

1.7

0.06

1.8

0.09

1.65

0.04

2.37

0.06

2.45

0.06

1.84

0.06

2.23

0.09

CALIFORNIA

1.87

0.01

1.68

0.01

2.3

0.03

2.14

0.03

2.18

0.04

2.57

0.03

2.52

0.03

COLORADO

2.21

0.07

2.37

0.07

2.27

0.06

2.56

0.06

2.56

0.07

2.62

0.09

FLORIDA

0.95

0.01

2.34

0.02

3.22

0.04

2.88

0.04

2.66

0.04

2.19

0.03

2.15

0.03

GEORGIA

1.48

0.02

1.78

0.03

2.53

0.05

2.8

0.04

2.48

0.04

2.38

0.05

2.41

0.05

HAWAII

3.1

0.23

2.5

0.17

2.48

0.12

2.99

0.13

3.32

0.19

ILLINOIS

1.88

0.02

1.75

0.02

1.44

0.02

1.43

0.04

IOWA

2.01

0.05

2.13

0.05

2.13

0.05

2.03

0.06

2.25

0.08

1.84

0.07

2.4

0.12

KENTUCKY

1.23

0.04

1.51

0.04

1.74

0.04

1.48

0.04

LOUISIANA

2.24

0.08

2.02

0.04

2.18

0.06

2.22

0.04

2.13

0.05

2.62

0.07

2.18

0.05

MICHIGAN

2.11

0.03

2.45

0.04

2.56

0.05

2.86

0.06

2.86

0.1

4.49

0.16

MINNESOTA

1.39

0.04

1.38

0.04

1.32

0.04

1.57

0.05

1.6

0.06

1.28

0.04

1.31

0.04

MISSISSIPPI

1.46

0.04

1.69

0.05

1.75

0.05

1.71

0.08

MISSOURI

1.88

0.04

1.76

0.05

1.38

0.04

1.64

0.04

1.67

0.04

2.28

0.06

2.14

0.05

NEBRASKA

1.68

0.07

1.4

0.08

1.75

0.09

1.69

0.09

1.69

0.11

NEVADA

2.59

0.07

2.47

0.07

2.3

0.05

2.17

0.05

1.92

0.05

NEW HAMPSHIRE

2.54

0.16

2.2

0.17

2.27

0.15

2.61

0.2

NEW JERSEY

2.07

0.04

1.7

0.03

1.99

0.04

1.9

0.04

1.81

0.05

NEW YORK

3.04

0.03

1.95

0.03

2.5

0.04

2.61

0.05

2.69

0.06

3.49

0.11

3.66

0.12

1.4

0.02

1.47

0.03

2.42

0.06

1.82

0.06

1.68

0.06

2.54

0.08

2.38

0.07

NORTH DAKOTA

1.15

0.07

1.29

0.09

1.51

0.08

1.35

0.15

1.62

0.09

1.50

0.11

OHIO

1.67

0.03

1.73

0.03

4.89

0.08

OKLAHOMA

1.48

0.04

1.86

0.07

3.49

0.1

3.1

0.08

2.85

0.09

2.43

0.08

2.66

0.09

2.2

0.08

1.22

0.07

2.09

0.14

1.82

0.09

1.89

0.11

3.78

0.24

4.12

0.27

PENNSYLVANIA

2.49

0.06

3

0.08

3.15

0.08

2.85

0.08

2.92

0.1

3.57

0.15

4.49

0.20

SOUTH CAROLINA

1.65

0.03

1.83

0.04

1.97

0.04

1.87

0.04

1.87

0.05

2.01

0.05

2.07

0.05

1.7

0.19

1.72

0.11

1.89

0.12

1.48

0.09

1.31

0.1

NORTH CAROLINA

OREGON

SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE

2.42

0.04

0.99

0.02

1.22

0.03

1.26

0.02

1.32

0.03

1.55

0.03

1.41

0.02

TEXAS

1.83

0.01

2.31

0.03

3.83

0.04

1.91

0.03

2.11

0.04

2.15

0.02

2.04

0.02

UTAH

2.08

0.07

1.74

0.07

2.03

0.1

2.02

0.07

2.3

0.1

VIRGINIA

1.64

0.04

1.77

0.03

2.28

0.04

2.36

0.04

2.66

0.06

1.8

0.04

WASHINGTON

1.72

0.07

1.68

0.05

1.56

0.05

1.63

0.04

1.92

0.04

2.8

0.14

WEST VIRGINIA

1.68

0.1

1.47

0.12

1.53

0.1

2.6

0.1

3.24

0.12

WISCONSIN

2.29

0.05

2.18

0.05

2.78

0.05

3.22

0.08

3.56

0.16

SOURCE: Pew Center on the States, 2012.

56

Pew Center on the States

Appendix A: Estimating Length of Stay by State

Appendix Table A4

Confidence Intervals for Time Served Estimates, Drug Crimes
Time
served

+/–

Time
served

+/–

Time
served

+/–

Time
served

+/–

Expected 2009

+/–

Expected 2005

Time
served

Average 2009

+/–

Average 2005

Time
served

Average 2000

+/–

Average 1995

Time
served

Average 1990

ALABAMA

1.52

0.05

1.93

0.05

2.05

0.05

2.02

0.04

2.04

0.04

ARKANSAS

1.35

0.05

1.71

0.08

1.76

0.04

2.71

0.06

3

0.06

1.74

0.05

2.41

0.09

CALIFORNIA

1.65

0.01

1.8

0.01

2.08

0.02

2.39

0.03

2.33

0.03

2.43

0.03

2.26

0.03

COLORADO

1.84

0.07

1.77

0.07

2.05

0.05

2.44

0.05

2.48

0.07

FLORIDA

0.79

0.01

2.21

0.02

2.46

0.03

2.3

0.03

2.32

0.04

1.29

GEORGIA

1.12

0.02

1.52

0.03

2.1

0.04

2.19

0.03

2.08

0.03

HAWAII

2.62

0.28

2.55

0.18

2.34

0.11

2.79

0.18

2.95

0.22

ILLINOIS

1.63

0.03

1.47

0.02

1.2

0.02

1.22

0.03

1.7

0.07

2.39

0.08

2.41

0.06

2.06

0.04

2.26

KENTUCKY

0.92

0.04

1.18

0.03

1.42

0.03

1.23

0.02

LOUISIANA

2.01

0.07

2.01

0.03

2.27

0.05

2.27

0.04

MICHIGAN

1.66

0.03

2.35

0.06

2.69

0.08

2.8

0.09

MINNESOTA

1.1

0.05

1.43

0.08

1.38

0.05

2.08

0.06

MISSISSIPPI

1.22

0.04

1.5

0.04

1.79

0.05

1.77

0.08

MISSOURI

1.52

0.06

1.66

0.07

1.28

0.04

1.36

NEBRASKA

1.43

0.07

1.48

0.08

1.6

0.08

1.44

NEVADA

2.11

0.08

2.47

0.08

2.24

0.06

2

0.12

2.03

0.11

2.02

0.15

NEW JERSEY

1.83

0.02

1.79

0.02

2.02

NEW YORK

2.46

0.03

2.06

0.02

2.41

NORTH CAROLINA

1.26

0.02

1.20

0.02

NORTH DAKOTA

0.96

0.09

0.99

0.13

OHIO

1.07

0.02

1.23

OKLAHOMA

1.19

0.06

1.65

OREGON

1.04

0.05

PENNSYLVANIA

1.96

SOUTH CAROLINA

IOWA

NEW HAMPSHIRE

SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE

2.44

0.1

0.01

2.14

0.03

2.11

0.05

2.1

0.05

0.07

1.89

0.08

2.83

0.17

2.14

0.05

2.47

0.06

2.2

0.04

2.88

0.17

3.9

0.18

2.18

0.08

1.74

0.07

1.52

0.05

0.03

1.37

0.04

1.83

0.04

1.79

0.04

0.08

1.55

0.09

2.27

0.07

1.76

0.07

2.28

0.18

0.02

2.09

0.03

1.92

0.04

0.02

2.56

0.03

2.24

0.03

2.61

0.05

2.23

0.05

1.78

0.05

1.67

0.04

1.74

0.05

2.54

0.09

2.8

0.1

1.19

0.09

1.2

0.1

1.79

0.12

1.3

0.07

0.02

2.9

0.09

0.07

2.84

0.07

2.73

0.05

2.65

0.06

2.3

0.06

2.66

0.08

1.08

0.05

1.49

0.05

1.67

0.08

1.68

0.1

2.7

0.22

3.07

0.26

0.04

2.65

0.05

2.81

0.05

2.63

0.04

2.83

0.06

3.19

0.1

4.15

0.14

1.38

0.04

1.72

0.04

2.08

0.05

1.93

0.05

2.16

0.07

2.3

0.07

2.63

0.09

1

0.17

1.27

0.19

1.27

0.09

1.13

0.05

1.14

0.07

1.61

0.04

0.91

0.03

1.35

0.03

1.37

0.03

1.46

0.03

2.04

0.06

1.88

0.05

TEXAS

1.6

0.01

2.12

0.02

3.29

0.03

1.78

0.02

1.82

0.02

1.7

0.02

1.53

0.01

UTAH

1.77

0.08

1.48

0.05

1.68

0.06

1.74

0.04

1.97

0.05

VIRGINIA

1.28

0.03

1.65

0.03

2.16

0.04

2.28

0.04

2.2

0.05

1.68

0.04

WASHINGTON

1.21

0.02

1.64

0.03

1.71

0.03

1.6

0.03

1.79

0.04

2.32

0.09

WEST VIRGINIA

1.36

0.13

1.16

0.09

1.44

0.1

1.91

0.09

2.26

0.11

WISCONSIN

1.63

0.05

1.24

0.04

2.02

0.04

2.33

0.05

2.62

0.11

SOURCE: Pew Center on the States, 2012.

Time Served: The High Cost, Low Return of Longer Prison Terms

57

Appendix B: Full Methodology
Criminal History Accumulation
Process (CHAP)
To calculate an offender trajectory, Pew’s
contractor Dr. Avinash Bhati collected all
pre- and post-release arrest histories for
three years for each individual released
from state prison in 2004 in Florida,
Maryland, and Michigan (these cohorts
represent all releases, not first releases as
in the findings above). This information
included dated arrest histories for
offenders with a recorded date of birth.
These data tell the age of first, second,
and subsequent arrests for an offender.
This allows the measurement of elapsed
time between successive arrests. Dr. Bhati
also collected offender demographics,
admission and release dates for the
current incarceration, and outcome of
the arrest (whether the arrest resulted in
a probation term and/or an incarceration
term). This allows him to develop a
Criminal History Accumulation Process
(CHAP), which is a means of linking
the current risk of offending to age and
criminal history—a better measure of
criminal history than simply the number
of prior arrests or even age at first arrest.

arrest pattern data with the number of
charges for each crime within an arrest,
the crime clearance rate for various
years during which arrest histories are
observed, the crime reporting rate by
age of offender and crime categories,
co-offending rates specific to the offense
category, and replacement rates. An
adjustment, or correction factor, is
employed to reflect the fact that not
every crime is reported or cleared and
that some incapacitated or deterred
offenders are replaced in the community.
For example, a person is arrested for
drug sales and is simply replaced in the
community by another individual selling
drugs in the same market.

An offending trajectory is then
calculated. The pre-incarceration
offending trajectory is considered
the counterfactual: the trajectory
that an offender would have been
on had s/he not been incarcerated.
A second post-release trajectory is
calculated reflecting how the offender’s
trajectory was deflected as a result
The observed arrest history can then
of this incarceration. Comparing
be used to develop estimated future
the counterfactual with the postoffending paths. This is done by adjusting release offending trajectory allows an
58

Pew Center on the States

Appendix B: Full Methodology (CHAP)

assessment of the extent to which an
offender’s behavior has been modified by
incarceration.

years in this case). This constitutes the
counterfactual offending trajectory.
The prisoner is then released from prison
at age 37. Using the available rearrest data
for the following three years, Dr. Bhati
estimates a post-release arrest trajectory.
Two scenarios are depicted in Figure B.1. If
the prisoner is deterred then the offender
should accumulate fewer post-release
rearrests relative to what he would have after
netting out the incapacitation effect—i.e.,
if he picked up his career where he left off
upon release. This is indicated by marker
B. If he accumulated rearrests at a quicker
rate than anticipated then we have a

The example shown in Figure B1 involves
a prisoner who was incarcerated at age 34
for a period of three years. Using this past
criminal history accumulation process,
Dr. Bhati first develops an arrest trajectory
(termed here as the pre-incarceration
offending trajectory). According to this
trajectory, the offender has approximately
10 prior arrest records. Next, the preincarceration arrest trajectory is plotted
out over the course of his incarceration
and through the follow-up period (three
Figure B1

Calculating the Incapacitation, Specific Deterrence, or Criminogenic
Effects of Incarceration
13

CRIMINAL HISTORY

12

Post-release
criminogenic
trajectory

Counterfactual
offending
trajectory
11

B

A

C
10

Post-release
deterrent
trajectory

Pre-incarceration
offending
trajectory

9

Incarcerated
for three years
at age 34

8
30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

AGE
SOURCE: Pew Center on the States, 2012.

Time Served: The High Cost, Low Return of Longer Prison Terms

59

Appendix B: Full Methodology (CHAP)

criminogenic post-release trajectory. This
is indicated by the marker C. Finally, the
difference between the number of rearrests
he would have accumulated had he not
been incarcerated—the incapacitation
effect—is indicated by the marker A. The
net effect of incarcerating this individual is
computed using A, B, and C depending on
whether he is deterred or not.

has produced on the topic of length
of stay in prison and crime. His earlier
work on this topic has been published
in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology
and the Journal of Criminal Law and
Criminology. Dr. Bhati is the founding
president of Maxarth LLC. He has over
ten years of experience conducting
applied empirical research addressing
challenging public policy questions. Dr.
This method is not unlike more commonly Bhati earned a Ph.D. in Economics from
known risk assessment instruments, but
the American University (Washington,
with a key difference. Risk instruments use DC) in 2001 and has since successfully
aggregate outcomes to inform decisions
led several research efforts supported by
about release and/or classification for
the U.S. National Science Foundation,
individuals on a case-by-case basis.
the U.S. Department of Justice, the
Criminal trajectory modeling adds the
Court Services and Offender Supervision
element of time to these models. Rather
Agency for the District of Columbia, the
than simply noting that certain individuals American Statistical Association, and
are less likely to recidivate upon release
several foundations. He has consulted
based on the number of crimes committed with several universities, research
in the past, trajectory modeling can
organizations, and practitioners. Dr.
provide guidance on when individuals tip Bhati is the author of numerous articles
from one risk category into the next. In
and reports. His multi-disciplinary work
adding the element of time, this approach can be found in such publications as
provides policy makers with additional
Criminology, Econometric Reviews, Journal
information on how to address the size
of Quantitative Criminology, Journal of
and cost of their state’s prison population. Criminal Law and Criminology, Sociological
Methodology, and Criminal Justice Policy
The analysis conducted for this project
Review. He serves on the editorial board of
is part of a series of papers that Dr. Bhati
the Journal of Quantitative Criminology.

60

Pew Center on the States

Endnotes
1 Center for Media and Public Affairs, “Network
News in the Nineties: The Top Topics and Trends of
the Decade,” Media Monitor (July/Aug 1997), http://
www.cmpa.com/files/media_monitor/97julaug.pdf;
D. Romer, K. H. Jamieson, and S. Aday, “Television
News and the Cultivation of Fear of Crime,” Journal of
Communication 53 (2003):88–104, http://www-rohan.
sdsu.edu/~digger/305/crime_cultivation_theory.pdf.
2 National Association of State Budget Officers, State
Expenditure Report 2010 (Washington, DC: 2011),
http://www.nasbo.org/sites/default/files/2010%20
State%20Expenditure%20Report.pdf.
3 Pew Center on the States, State of Recidivism: The
Revolving Door of America’s Prisons (Washington, DC:
The Pew Charitable Trusts, April 2011).
4 Raymond V. Liedka, Anne Morrison Piehl, and Bert
Useem,”The Crime-Control Effect of Incarceration: Does
Scale Matter?” Criminology & Public Policy 5 (2006):245–
276; Rucker Johnson and Steven Raphael, “How
Much Crime Reduction Does the Marginal Prisoner
Buy?” Working paper (2010), http://socrates.berkeley.
edu/~ruckerj/johnson_raphael_crimeincarcJLE.pdf.
5 These states are Alaska, California, Connecticut,
Delaware, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma,
South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin.
6 Steve Aos, “Evidence-Based Policy Options to Reduce
Crime, Criminal Justice Costs and Prison Construction,”
Symposium on Alternatives to Incarceration
(Washington, DC: U.S. Sentencing Commission, July
14–15, 2008).

7 Pew Center on the States, “Prison Count 2010: State
Population Declines for the First Time in 38 Years,”
(Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts, April
2010).
8 All reported time served estimates have been
converted from months to years and rounded. The
percentage change estimates are calculated from the
original time served estimates based on months.
9 Calculated based on a per capita cost of $85 per day
from Vera Institute of Justice, The Price of Prisons: What
Incarceration Costs Taxpayers (New York: March 2012),
http://www.vera.org/download?file=3476/the-price-ofprisons-updated.pdf.
10 It is important to note that these percentage
changes are between individual years. Because of the
way the average LOS is measured, time served can
vary greatly from one year to the next. Thus Florida
had particularly low LOS in 1990 (significantly
lower than in other years from the early 1990s)
contributing to the particularly high percentage
change.
11 Three states (Minnesota, Ohio, and Oklahoma) did
not have sufficient data on sentence length to calculate
drivers, therefore all percentages are calculated based
on data from 32 states. Five states (16 percent) had an
overall decline.
12 Evelyn J. Patterson and Samuel H. Preston,
“Estimating Mean Length of Stay in Prison: Methods
and Applications,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 24
(2008): 33–49.

Time Served: The High Cost, Low Return of Longer Prison Terms

61

ENDNOTES

13 Sean Nicholson-Crotty, “The Impact of Sentencing
Guidelines on State-Level Sanctions: An Analysis Over
Time,” Crime & Delinquency 50 (July 2004): 395–411.
14 Susan Turner, Terry Fain, Peter W. Greenwood,
Elsa Y. Chen, and James R. Chiesa, National Evaluation
of the Violent Offender Incarceration/Truth-inSentencing Incentive Grant Program, report submitted
to the National Institute of Justice (RAND, 2001).
15 Ibid, 72 and 78.
16 Bureau of Justice Statistics, Felony Sentencing in
State Courts, 2006—Statistical Tables, National Judicial
Reporting Program (Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Justice, revised Nov. 2010), http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/
content/pub/pdf/fssc06st.pdf.
17 Joan Petersilia, When Prisoners Come Home: Parole
and Prisoner Reentry (New York: Oxford University
Press, 2003), 66–67, cited by Kevin R. Reitz, “The
‘Traditional’ Indeterminate Sentencing Model,” in
Joan Petersilia and Kevin R. Reitz (eds.), The Oxford
Handbook of Sentencing and Corrections (New York:
Oxford University Press, 2012), 270.
18 For example, in Georgia, a defendant convicted of
felony shoplifting faces a sentence of one to 10 years,
Georgia Statute Sec. 16-8-14. In Utah, the statutory
range for a second-degree felony is one to 15 years in
prison, http://www.bop.utah.gov/faq.html.
19 Tony Fabelo, division director, Research, Justice
Center at the Center for State Governments, e-mail to
Pew Center on the States, March 14, 2012.
20 Association of Paroling Authorities International,
“International Survey of Paroling and Releasing
Authorities 2007–2008: Executive Summary and Key
Findings,” (Huntsville, TX: 2008), http://www.apaintl.
org/documents/surveys/2008e.pdf.
21 Donald Gilliland, “Pennsylvania Board of Parole’s
Vacancies Could Increase Prison Population,” The
Patriot-News [Harrisburg, PA], Nov. 6, 2011, http://
www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/
pennsylvania_board_of_paroles.html.

62

Pew Center on the States

22 Florida Department of Corrections, Annual Report
1996-1997 and 2006-2007, http://www.dc.state.fl.us/
pub/annual/9697/stats/ia4.html and http://www.
dc.state.fl.us/pub/annual/0607/stats/im_admis.html.
23 Kara Dansky et al., “Increases in California
Sentencing Since the Enactment of the Determinate
Sentencing Act,” prepared for Little Hoover
Commission (Stanford Criminal Justice Center, January
2007).
24 Joan Petersilia, “Meeting the Challenges of
Rehabilitation in California’s Prison and Parole System:
A Report from Gov. Schwarzenegger’s Rehabilitation
Strike Team,” (December 2007).
25 James Austin, “A Plan to Right-Size California’s
Prison and Local Correctional Systems,” forthcoming.
26 Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing, Sentencing
in Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing
2010 Annual Report (Dec. 1, 2011). 
27 Vera Institute of Justice, The Price of Prisons (2012).
28 Daniel S. Nagin, Francis T. Cullen, and Cheryl Lero
Jonson, “Imprisonment and Reoffending,” in Michael
Tonry (ed.), Crime and Justice: A Review of Research,
Vol. 23 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008).
29 Lynne M. Vieraitis, Tomislav V. Kovandzic, and
Thomas B. Marvell, “The Criminogenic Effects of
Imprisonment: Evidence from State Panel Data, 19742002,” Criminology & Public Policy 6 (2007):589–622.;
Paul Gendreau and Claire Goggin, The Effects of Prison
Sentences on Recidivism (Ottawa, Canada: Department of
the Solicitor General, 1999).
30 Nagin et al., “Imprisonment and Reoffending,”
(2008).
31 National Council of Crime and Delinquency,
Accelerated Release: A Literature Review (Oakland,
CA: Jan. 2008); Bureau of Justice Statistics,
Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1983; U.S.
Department of Justice, Recidivism of Prisoners
Released in 1994 (Washington, DC: 2002); Gendreau

ENDNOTES

and Goggin, The Effects of Prison Sentences on
Recidivism (1999); T. Orsagh and J.R. Chen,
“The Effect of Time Served on Recidivism: An
Interdisciplinary Theory,” Journal of Quantitative
Criminology 2 (1988): 155–171; Washington State
Institute for Public Policy, Sentences for Adult Felons
in Washington: Options to Address Prison Overcrowding
(Olympia, WA: 2004); Ilyana Kuziemko, Going Off
Parole: How the Elimination of Discretionary Prison
Release Affects the Social Cost of Crime, National
Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper
(2007), http://www.nber.org/papers/w13380.
32 G. Matthew Snodgrass, Arjan A. J. Blokland, Amelia
Haviland, Paul Nieuwbeerta, Daniel S. Nagin, “Does
the Time Cause the Crime? An Examination of the
Relationship Between Time Served and Reoffending in
the Netherlands,” Criminology 49 (2011):1149–1194;
Thomas A. Loughran, Edward P. Mulvey, Carol A.
Schubert, Jeffrey Fagan, Alex R. Piquero, and Sandra
H. Losoya, “Estimating a Dose-Response Relationship
Between Length of Stay and Future Recidivism in
Serious Juvenile Offenders,” Criminology 47 (2009):
699–740.
33 A. S. Bhati, “Estimating the Number of Crimes
Averted by Incapacitation: An Information-Theoretic
Approach,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 23(4,
2007):355–375; A. S. Bhati, Quantifying the Specific
Deterrent Effects of DNA Databases (Washington, DC:
The Urban Institute, 2010); A. S. Bhati and A. R.
Piquero, “Estimating the Impacts of Incarceration
on Subsequent Offending Trajectories: Deterrent,
Criminogenic, or Null Effects?” Journal of Criminal Law
and Criminology 98(1, 2008):207–253.
34 These characteristics are age of first crime, criminal
career duration, criminal career termination, and
offense type.
35 See Appendix B for further description of this
methodology.

36 Pew Center on the States, State of Recidivism, 27.
37 National Center for State Courts, Offender Risk
Assessment in Virginia: A Three-Stage Evaluation
(Williamsburg, VA: 2002), http://www.vcsc.virginia.
gov/risk_off_rpt.pdf.
38 For more information, visit the websites of the
following states: Arizona, http://www.azcourts.
gov/portals/22/admorder/orders09/2009-01.pdf;
Colorado, http://www.colorado-criminal-lawyer-online.
com/2011/09/new-2011-state-law-increases-p.html;
Kentucky, http://www.lrc.ky.gov/krs/532-00/007.PDF;
Ohio, http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/5120.114; Tennessee,
http://law.justia.com/codes/tennessee/2010/title-41/
chapter-1/part-4/41-1-412/.
39 Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, Recidivism
Risk Reduction Incentive: 2012 Report, Bureau of
Planning, Research and Statistics (Camp Hill, PA:
2012), http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/
document/1222122/rrri_2012_report_pdf.
40 John F. Pfaff, The Myths and Realities of Correctional
Severity: Evidence from the National Corrections Reporting
Program on Sentencing Practices, Fordham Law Legal
Studies Research Paper No. 1338365, http://ssrn.com/
abstract=1338365.
41 Patterson and Preston, “Estimating Mean Length of
Stay in Prison,” (2008), 42.
42 All variable numbers refer to the 2009 NCRP.
While the basic variables collected remained the same
throughout the history of the NCRP, the specific
number and order changed somewhat in the 1980s
and early 1990s.
43 Steve Raphael professor of Public Policy, University
of California Berkeley, Goldman School of Public
Policy, phone call with Pew Center on the States,
January 2012.

Time Served: The High Cost, Low Return of Longer Prison Terms

63

Launched in 2006, the Public Safety
Performance Project seeks to help states
advance fiscally sound, data-driven policies
and practices in sentencing and corrections
that protect public safety, hold offenders
accountable, and control corrections costs.

The Pew Center on the States is a division of
The Pew Charitable Trusts that identifies and
advances effective solutions to critical issues
facing states. Pew is a nonprofit organization
that applies a rigorous, analytical approach to
improve public policy, inform the public, and
stimulate civic life.
www.pewstates.org

STAY ConnectED
twitter.com/pewstates

 pewstates.org

youtube.com/pew

facebook.com/pewtrusts

pewstates.org/newsletter