Massachusetts Department of Correction
One-Year Recidivism Rates of Men
Released 2013 – 2020: A Multi-Year
Descriptive Analysis of Correctional
Recovery Academy and High School
Equivalency Credential
Calendar Year 2023
Executive Office of Public Safety and Security
November 2023
Maura T. Healey, Governor
Terrence M. Reidy, Secretary of Public Safety and Security
 One-Year Recidivism Rates of Men Released 2013 – 2020: A Multi-Year Descriptive Analysis of
Correctional Recovery Academy and High School Equivalency Credential
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Maura T. Healey, Governor
Kimberley Driscoll, Lieutenant Governor
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY
Terrence M. Reidy, Secretary
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION
Carol A. Mici, Commissioner
Rhiana Kohl, Ph.D., Executive Director, Strategic Planning and Research
PREPARED BY
Hollie Matthews, Deputy Director, Strategic Planning and Research
Matthew Moniz, Director, Program Services Division and Reentry Services Division
Kelly Paquin, Operations Analyst Manager, Office of the Assistant Deputy Commissioner of Reentry
Jiqiang Rong, Statistician, Research and Planning Division
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The publication of this report would not be possible without the assistance of the following:
Massachusetts Department of Correction, Division of Inmate Training and Education
Massachusetts Department of Correction, Program Services Division
Massachusetts Department of Correction, Research and Planning Division
Spectrum Health Systems, Inc.
This and other Massachusetts Department of Correction publications can be accessed on the internet at:
https://www.mass.gov/research-statistics-and-reports
ii
 One-Year Recidivism Rates of Men Released 2013 – 2020: A Multi-Year Descriptive Analysis of
Correctional Recovery Academy and High School Equivalency Credential
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................................... ii
Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................... iii
Definition of Terms ........................................................................................................................ 1
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... 3
Key Findings ................................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 4
Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 5
Correctional Recovery Academy and High School Equivalency Credential ........................... 8
Correctional Recovery Academy ................................................................................................. 9
High School Equivalency Credential.......................................................................................... 10
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 11
Works Cited.................................................................................................................................. 12
Appendix A ................................................................................................................................... 13
Appendix B ................................................................................................................................... 14
Appendix C ................................................................................................................................... 15
iii
 One-Year Recidivism Rates of Men Released 2013 – 2020: A Multi-Year Descriptive Analysis of
Correctional Recovery Academy and High School Equivalency Credential
Definition of Terms
Academic Education Services: Incarcerated individuals without a high school diploma or equivalency upon
admission are identified as being eligible for Academic Education Services, which range from English as a
Second Language (ESL) to Adult Secondary Education (ASE), and facilitates incarcerated individuals
earning their high school equivalency.
Board of Probation: The Court Activity Record Information (CARI) file that provides criminal history
information starting with each arraignment. The Massachusetts Board of Probation (BOP) record maintains
the CARI file on the Massachusetts Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS).
Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS): COMPAS is an
automated risk/needs assessment tool utilized to inform the development of an incarcerated individual’s
personalized program plan. COMPAS has been normed and validated to the Massachusetts Department of
Correction population.
Criminogenic Need: Factors which impact criminal behavior and can be altered over time with appropriate
treatment and programming.
Correctional Recovery Academy (CRA): An intensive 6-month substance use program currently located at
four institutions: Northeastern Correctional Center, MCI-Norfolk, MCI-Shirley, and MCI-Concord. CRA
targets relapse prevention and cognitive behavioral programming. The program utilizes rolling admission
and combines elements of a therapeutic community’s social learning approach with an advanced cognitive
behavioral curriculum.
Electronic Monitoring Program (ELMO): ELMO is a program which promotes reentry by maximizing an
incarcerated individual’s time in the community prior to release, thereby allowing the incarcerated
individual to demonstrate their ability to function in a realistic living environment while monitored under
strict conditions of accountability.
Governing Offense: The offense associated with the sentence imposing the longest maximum discharge
date when an incarcerated individual is convicted and sentenced for multiple offenses.
High School Diploma or Equivalent (General Equivalency Diploma, High School Equivalency Test):
Education level associated with incarcerated individuals with a verified High School Diploma, or High
School Equivalency Credential, or those who earned a High School Equivalency Credential during their
incarceration.
Need Met: Indicates an incarcerated individual who completed the core program for the corresponding
criminogenic need area.
Need Not Met: Indicates an incarcerated individual who either did not enroll into a core program or enrolled
and did not complete. Reasons for not completing a program include, but are not limited to, release, transfer,
discipline process, voluntary withdrawal, and failure to meet program expectations.
Non-Violent Offense: Any offense that falls under the categories of “Property”, “Drug”, or “Other.”
Race/Ethnicity: Incarcerated individuals are asked to self-report their race and ethnicity. The recorded
categories are in accordance with 501 CMR 18.00, Data Collection and Reporting Standards for Criminal
Justice Agencies. Race categories are: American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian or Pacific Islander; Black
or African American; White; and Unknown. Ethnicity categories are: Hispanic or Latino; and Non-Hispanic
or Not Latino.
1
 One-Year Recidivism Rates of Men Released 2013 – 2020: A Multi-Year Descriptive Analysis of
Correctional Recovery Academy and High School Equivalency Credential
Recidivist: For the purposes of this report a recidivist is defined as any incarcerated individual in the study
cohort who, within one year of one’s release to the community, is arraigned for an offense that ultimately
results in a conviction. For this purpose, “conviction1” is defined as any outcome involving a new criminal
sentence, probation, suspended sentence, fine, or guilty finding. Additional follow-up time is necessary to
collect data because of the time required for an incarcerated individual’s new criminal charge to reach final
resolution in the trial court. For example, if an incarcerated individual who was released on January 1, 2013,
was arraigned for a new offense on March 1, 2013, and subsequently convicted and sentenced in February
2015, that incarcerated individual would be treated as having recidivated within the one-year period.
Recidivism Rate: The recidivism rate is calculated by dividing the number of incarcerated individuals
reconvicted within one year of release by the number of incarcerated individuals in the release cohort.
Recidivism Risk Score: On intake to the prison system, each incarcerated individual is given assessments
to establish their Intake/Criminal History/Risk Scale Set. Components of the scale set are the General and
Violent Recidivism Risk Scores which may be used to predict recidivism risk. The risk scores are based on
a COMPAS Core scale which is a standard decile scale with 1 corresponding to the lowest risk of recidivism
and 10 corresponding to the highest risk. The amount of programming required for a given incarcerated
individual is established by simplifying this scale to Low, Moderate, and High risk to recidivate.
Incarcerated individuals scoring a moderate to high risk to recidivate in either the general or the violent
recidivism scale are administered a needs assessment and the incarcerated individual is referred to
programming. Due to the implementation of the COMPAS Assessment, incarcerated individuals who were
incarcerated at the time of the roll-out were administered a Standing Risk Assessment as a proxy to the
Initial Risk or Core Risk Assessment. Those assessment scales are used interchangeably in the analysis.
Security Level: The security level designation of the facility from which the incarcerated individual was
released. For facilities with multi-level designations, the security level of the housing unit the incarcerated
individual was released from within the facility was used.
Substance Abuse Scale: The COMPAS substance abuse scale is categorized ranging from 1 to 10 based on
decile cut points and then categorized into low (1-2), moderate (3-4), and high (5–10) based on 20/20/60
cut points determined by a substance abuse norm group.
The Texas Christian University Drug Screen (TCUDS): TCUDS II or V is utilized as a secondary
measurement to determine substance use treatment need. The TCUDS is administered to incarcerated
individuals admitted to the reception centers and measures one’s recent schedule of use, withdrawal, and
tolerance factors providing a low or high score (TCUDS-II), or a None, Mild Disorder, Moderate Disorder,
Severe Disorder score (TCUDS-V).
Time Served: Time served includes the incarcerated individual’s length of stay in Massachusetts
Department of Correction custody as well as jail credits received prior to sentencing.
Violent Offense: Any offense that falls under crimes against the person, pursuant to M.G.L. c. 265, or a sex
offense.
1 For the years 2013 – 2016 a small
number of dispositions of continuance without a finding (CWOF) were counted as a reconviction
as some CWOF’s can include supervision. The 2017 – 2020 release cohorts do not include CWOF’s as they are not considered a
conviction.
2
 One-Year Recidivism Rates of Men Released 2013 – 2020: A Multi-Year Descriptive Analysis of
Correctional Recovery Academy and High School Equivalency Credential
Executive Summary
The purpose of this study is to analyze the recidivism rates2 of Massachusetts Department of Correction
(MA DOC) criminally sentenced incarcerated individuals released to the community via expiration of
sentence or parole from January 1, 2013 – December 31, 2020 who completed programs to address their
criminogenic need areas to determine if expected reductions in recidivism were observed.
The two criminogenic need areas examined for the cohort were substance use and academic education.
Program completion for incarcerated individuals with a substance use need was determined through
completion of the Correctional Recovery Academy (CRA) while educational need was determined through
the attainment of a High School Equivalency Credential (HSE). Three distinct cohorts were analyzed, and
their associated recidivism rates were examined to determine the differences between incarcerated
individuals who successfully completed programming and those who did not. The first cohort consisted of
incarcerated individuals with both substance use and academic education need areas. The second cohort
consisted of incarcerated individuals with only a substance use need, and the third cohort consisted of
incarcerated individuals with only an educational need.
Key Findings
• Incarcerated individuals with both a substance use need and an educational need had statistically
significant lower recidivism rates if both program needs were met. The recidivism rate was 7.8%
for incarcerated individuals with both a substance use and educational need who completed CRA
and achieved a HSE, compared to a rate of 19.7% for incarcerated individuals who did not meet
both need areas.
• Overall, incarcerated individuals with both substance use and educational needs had the highest
recidivism rate (16.8%), followed by incarcerated individuals with only a substance use need
(14.9%), and incarcerated individuals with only an educational need (14.4%). Incarcerated
individuals with neither a substance use need, nor an educational need had the lowest recidivism
rate (11.7%). (See graph 3).
• Incarcerated individuals with only a substance use need who completed CRA had a recidivism rate
of 10.5%. Incarcerated individuals with only a substance use need who did not complete CRA had
a recidivism rate of 18.6%.
• Incarcerated individuals who only had an educational need and who also received a HSE had a
recidivism rate of 8.8%. Incarcerated individuals with only an educational need who did not receive
a HSE had a recidivism rate of 16.1%.
• The lower recidivism rates among those incarcerated individuals who met their criminogenic need
areas with programming were consistent under different controlled situations (See Appendices A,
B, and C). The consistent results across these control groups suggest a robust relationship between
completion of programming such as CRA and/or HSE and lower rates of recidivism. These
2 The recidivism rate is based on reconviction within one year for criminally sentenced incarcerated individuals released to the
community via expiration of sentence or parole from January 1, 2013 – December 31, 2020, whose first release occurred during
this time-period. The reconviction date is based on the initial arraignment date associated with the reconviction.
3
 One-Year Recidivism Rates of Men Released 2013 – 2020: A Multi-Year Descriptive Analysis of
Correctional Recovery Academy and High School Equivalency Credential
programs appeared to work particularly well with incarcerated individuals of higher risk, medium
security level, person and property crimes, and in the White and Black or African American racial
groups.
• For the overall study cohort of incarcerated individuals with a substance use and/or educational
need, the one-year recidivism rate was 15.6%.
Meta-analysis has indicated that programming designed to meet the educational and therapeutic needs of
incarcerated individuals with histories of substance use will result in a reduction in the rate of recidivism
(Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2013; Duwe, 2017). The data analyzed in this study comports
with prior research that indicates therapeutic communities for substance use programming and educational
programming during incarceration, independent of each other, will result in lower recidivism rates
(Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2013; Duwe, 2017). More importantly, MA DOC’s findings
indicate the key to maximizing recidivism reduction for incarcerated individuals with a substance use and
educational need was to meet both need areas.
Introduction
How recidivism is conceptualized and how a recidivism cohort is defined can drastically influence a
reported recidivism rate. Common definitions for recidivism include: the recommitting of a crime; the
reconviction of a crime; or the reincarceration to jail or prison after release to the community following an
incarceration.
For the purposes of this report, recidivism is defined as a reconviction based on an arraignment occurring
within one year from the date of an incarcerated individual’s release to the community. Conviction types
include a criminal sentence to a Massachusetts state or county facility, a term of probation, a suspended
sentence, a split sentence, or a fine. Because of the time it takes to prosecute a crime and reach final
resolution of a charge, the initial arraignment date associated with the new offense is used to determine the
date of reconviction.
A primary objective of MA DOC is to rehabilitate incarcerated individuals and prepare them for successful
reentry into society. Incarcerated individuals are assessed through a risk/needs analysis and those identified
as being at the highest risk of recidivism are enrolled in programs designed to target their specific
criminogenic need areas, with the goal of deterring future criminality. To measure success, recidivism rates
are used to determine an incarcerated individual’s ability to abstain from criminal behavior aft