Skip navigation.
Home | About Us | Contact Us
Rick Scott, Governor
Florida Department of Corrections, Secretary Julie L. Jones

Florida Department of Corrections
Julie L. Jones, Secretary

Recidivism Rates - Model Factor Tables for Inmates Released 2010

Table 1. Hazard Ratios for Categorical Factors Selected by Model (Male)

Factors Values Overall Releases 2010
(Available Data Only)
Percent of Release Cohort Recidivism Rate Hazard Ratio
Supervision to Follow Yes 9,978 35% 38% 1.944**
No 18,647 65% 21%  
Gang Membership Yes 2,175 8% 45% 1.461**
No 26,450 92% 26%  
Ethnicity Hispanic 2,516 9% 20% 0.676**
Non-Hispanic 26,109 91% 28%  
Custody at Release Low (Community or Minimum) 12,764 45% 23% 0.833**
Sex Offense within 15 Years Prior to Admission Sex Offense 1,794 6% 31% 1.259**
No Spouse Yes 5,588 22% 30% 1.059*
No 19,325 78% 27%  
Inmate Has Other Negative Influences in Their Life Yes 329 1% 38% 1.191*
No 24,584 99% 27%  
Murder Offense within 15 Years Prior to Admission Murder Offense 660 2% 22% 0.842*
**: p-value ≤ 0.01; *: 0.01 < p-value <0.05; NS: Not Significant at α = 0.05

Table 2. Hazard Ratios for Continuous Factors Selected by Model (Male)

Factors Value Median Mean Hazard Ratio
Criminal History Number of Prior Prison Commitments (0-9) 0.0 0.7 1.277**
Age at Release Age at Release (15-82) 33 35 0.97**
Institutional Behavior Number of Disciplinary Reports During Current Incar. (0-128) 1.0 2.6 1.012**
Criminal History Number of Burglary Offenses (0-102) 0 1.0 1.036**
Education Level Most Recent Tests of Adult Basic Education (TABE) Score (Grade Equivalents of 1-12.9) 7.1 0.962**
Number of Visits Inmate Gets 12 Months Prior to Release Number of Visits(0-113) 0 2.9 0.987**
Substance Abuse Severity Score Inmate-Reported Drug Screening Score (0-14) 4.0 5.4 1.016**
Criminal History Number of Theft Offenses (0-114) 0.0 1.8 1.023**
Number of Other Offenses within 5 Years Prior to Admission (0-13) 0.0 0.4 1.071**
Number of Drug Offenses within 5 Years Prior to Admission (0-23) 0.0 0.9 1.027**
**: p-value ≤ 0.01; *: 0.01 < p-value <0.05; NS: Not Significant at α = 0.05; †: An average cannot be calculated for grade equivalent TABE scores since these are not interval scale.

Table 3. Hazard Ratios for Categorical Factors Selected by Model (Female)

Factors Values Overall Releases 2010
(Available Data Only)
Percent of Release Cohort Recidivism Rate Hazard Ratio
Supervision to Follow Yes 1,193 32% 20% 1.894**
No 2,536 68% 11%  
Custody at Release Low (Community or Minimum) 2,575 69% 12% 0.709**
Most Serious Crime in Inmate History Murder 84 2% *** 0.24**
Inmate feels Animosity Towards Their Attorney Yes 371 12% 10% 0.643**
No 2,666 88% 15%  
Family has a Negative Influence on the Inmate Yes 87 3% *** 1.582*
No 2,950 97%  
Inmate Concerned about Child's Welfare Yes 2,078 68% 13.9% 1.214*
No 959 32% 14.2%
**: p-value ≤ 0.01; *: 0.01 < p-value <0.05; NS: Not Significant at α = 0.05; ***: Sample size is too small.

Table 4. Hazard Ratios for Continuous Factors Selected by Model (Female)

Factors Value Median Mean Hazard Ratio
Criminal History Number of Prior Prison Commitments (0-7) 0.0 0.4 1.474**
Age at First Offense Age at First Offense (13-63) 24.0 26.6 0.957**
Substance Abuse Severity Score Inmate-Reported Drug Screening Score (0-14) 6.0 6.5 1.056**
Number of Visits Inmate Gets 12 Month Prior to Release Number of Visits(0-89) 0 2.5 0.971**
Criminal History Number of Drug Offenses (0-28) 1.0 2.0 0.963*
**: p-value ≤ 0.01; *: 0.01 < p-value <0.05; NS: Not Significant at α = 0.05;

Note that hazard ratios in the above tables are interpreted as the multiple of the likelihood of failure. For example, in Table 1 male inmates who are gang members have a hazard ratio of 1.461. This ratio means that a male inmate who is a gang member is (1.461-1=0.461) 46.1% more likely to fail than a male inmate who is not a gang member with all other factors held constant (meaning they are identical on all factors in the model except for gang membership).

On the other hand, if the hazard ratio is less than one, the interpretation is a percent reduction in likelihood to fail. For example, in Table 1 a male Hispanic inmate is (1-0.676=.324) 32.4% less likely to recidivate than a non-Hispanic male inmate with all other factors held constant.

For those measures that are expressed as numeric counts instead of dichotomous (Yes/No), the hazard ratios show the increase or decrease per unit in the factor. For example, in Table 2 for each additional disciplinary report a male inmate receives while incarcerated, his likelihood of recidivating increases by (1.012-1=.012) 1.2%. For each additional grade level tested, his likelihood of recidivating decreases by (1-0.962=0.038) 3.8%.



Privacy Policy | Accessibility