Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 29, Issue 4, pp 601–642 | Cite as

The Effect of Incarceration on Re-Offending: Evidence from a Natural Experiment in Pennsylvania

  • Daniel S. NaginEmail author
  • G. Matthew Snodgrass
Original Paper



This paper uses a sample of convicted offenders from Pennsylvania to estimate the effect of incarceration on post-release criminality.


To do so, we capitalize on a feature of the criminal justice system in Pennsylvania—the county-level randomization of cases to judges. We begin by identifying five counties in which there is substantial variation across judges in the uses of incarceration, but no evidence indicating that the randomization process had failed. The estimated effect of incarceration on rearrest is based on comparison of the rearrest rates of the caseloads of judges with different proclivities for the use of incarceration.


Using judge as an instrumental variable, we estimate a series of confidence intervals for the effect of incarceration on one year, two year, five year, and ten year rearrest rates.


On the whole, there is little evidence in our data that incarceration impacts rearrest.


Effect of incarceration Instrumental variables Randomization Recidivism 



This work was generously supported by National Science Foundation Grants SES-102459 and SES-0647576. We are also grateful to Mark Bergstrom for coordinating the data collection with the PSC, PA DOC, and the PA State Police.


  1. Angrist J, Imbens GW, Rubin DB (1996) Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. J Am Stat Assoc 91:444–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anwar S, Stephens M (2011) The Effect of Sentence Length on Recidivism. Working Paper. Carnegie Mellon Un.: Pgh, PAGoogle Scholar
  3. Apel R (2013) Sanctions, perceptions and crime: implications for criminal deterrence. J Quant Crim 28Google Scholar
  4. Bales WD, Piquero AJ (2012) Assessing the impact of imprisonment on recidivism. J Exp Criminol 8:71–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bergman GR (1976) The evaluation of an experimental program designed to reduce recidivism among second felony criminal offenders. University Microfilms Publishers, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernburg JG, Krohn MD (2003) Labeling, life chances, and adult crime: the direct and indirect effects of official intervention in adolescence on crime in early adulthood. Criminology 41:1287–1318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bound J, Jaeger DA, Baker RM (1995) Problems with instrumental variables estimation when the correlation between the instrument and the endogeneous explanatory variable is weak. J Am Stat Assoc 90:443–450Google Scholar
  8. Cullen FT (2002) Rehabilitation and treatment programs. In: Wilson JQ, Petersilia J (eds) Crime: public policies for crime control. ICS Press, OaklandGoogle Scholar
  9. Freeman RB (1995) Why do so many young American men commit crimes and what might we do about it? J Econ Perspect 10:25–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Glueck S, Glueck E (1950) Unraveling juvenile delinquency. Commonwealth Fund, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Green DP, Winik D (2010) Using random judge assignments to estimate the effects of incarceration and probation on recidivism among drug offenders. Criminology 48:357–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hawkins G (1976) The prison: policy and practice. Chicago University Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  13. Heckman JJ, Schmierer D, Urzua S (2010) Testing the correlated random coefficient model. J Econom 158:177–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Imbens GW, Rosenbaum PR (2005) Robust, accurate confidence intervals with a weak instrument: quarter of birth and education. J R Stat Assoc Soc A 168:109–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Killias M, Aebi M, Ribeaud D (2000) Does community service rehabilitate better than short-term imprisonment? Results of a controlled experiment. Howard J Crim Justice 39:40–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Klepper S, Nagin D (1989) The Deterrent effect of perceived certainty and severity revisited. Criminology 27:721–746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Langan PA, Levin DJ (2002) Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. Bureau of Justice Statistics, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  18. Layton MacKenzie D (2002) Reducing the criminal activities of known offenders and delinquents: crime prevention in the courts and corrections. In: Sherman LW, Farrington DP, Welsh BC, Layton MacKenzie D (eds) Evidence-based crime prevention. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Loeffler CE (2013) Does imprisonment alter the life-course? Evidence on crime and employment from a natural experiment. Criminology 51. doi: 10.1111/1745-9125.12000
  20. Maddala GS, Jeong J (1992) On the exact small sample distribution of the instrumental variable estimator. Econometrica 60:181–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Manski CF, Nagin DS (1998) Bounding disagreements about treatment effects: a case study of sentencing and recidivism. Soc Meth 28:99–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Matsueda RL (1992) Reflected appraisal, parental labeling, and delinquency: specifying a symbolic interactionist theory. Am J Sociol 97:1577–1611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nagin DS, Paternoster R (1994) Personal capital and social control: the deterrence implications of individual differences in criminal offending. Criminology 32:581–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nagin DS, Pogarsky G (2003) An experimental investigation of deterrence: cheating, self-serving bias, and impulsivity. Criminology 41:167–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nagin DS, Waldfogel J (1995) The effects of criminality and conviction on the labor market status of young British offenders. Int Rev Law Econ 15:109–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nagin DS, Waldfogel J (1998) The effect of conviction on income through the life cycle. Int Rev Law Econ 18:25–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nagin DS, Cullen FT, Jonson CL (2009) Imprisonment and re-offending. In: Tonry M (ed) Crime and justice: a review of research, vol 38. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  28. Nagin DS (2013a) Deterrence: a review of the evidence by a criminologist for economists. Annual Review of Economics Google Scholar
  29. Nagin DS (2013b) Deterrence in the 21st century: a review of the evidence. In: Tonry M (ed) Crime and justice: an annual review of research, vol 5. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  30. Nakamura K (2010) Redemption in the face of stale criminal records used in background checks. Doctoral Dissertation Carnegie Mellon University, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  31. Nelson CR, Startz R (1990) Some further results on the exact small sample properties of the instrumental variable estimator. Econometrica 58:967–976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nieuwbeerta P, Nagin DS, Blokland A (2009) The relationship between first imprisonment and criminal career development: a matched samples comparison. J Quant Criminol 25:227–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rosenbaum PR (1996) Comment on “Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables” by Angrist, Imbens, and Rubin. J Am Stat Assoc 91:465–468Google Scholar
  34. Rosenbaum PR (1999) Using quantile averages in matched observational studies. Appl Stat 48:63–78Google Scholar
  35. Rosenbaum PR (2002a) Observational studies, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rosenbaum PR (2002b) Covariance adjustment in randomized experiments and observational studies (with discussion). Stat Sci 17:286–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sampson RJ, Laub JH (1993) Crime in the making: pathways and turning points through life. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  38. Sampson RJ, Laub JH (1997) A life-course theory of cumulative disadvantage and the stability of delinquency. In: Thornberry TP (ed) Developmental theories of crime and delinquency. Transaction Publishers, New BrunswickGoogle Scholar
  39. Sherman LW (1992) Policing and domestic violence. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. Snodgrass GM, Haviland A, Blokland A, Nieuwbeerta P, Nagin DS (2011) Does the time cause the crime? An examination of the relationship between time served and reoffending in the Netherlands. Criminology 49:1149–1194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Steffensmeier D, Ulmer JT (2005) Confessions of a dying thief. Aldine/Transaction Publishers, New BrunswickGoogle Scholar
  42. Van der Werff C (1979) Speciale Preventie. WODC, Den HaagGoogle Scholar
  43. Waldfogel J (1994) The effect of criminal conviction on income and the trust reposed in the workmen. J Hum Res 29:62–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wermink H, Blokland A, Nieuwbeerta P, Nagin DS, Tollenaar N (2010) Comparing the effects of community service and short-term imprisonment on recidivism: a matched samples approach. J Exp Criminol 6:325–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Western B (2002) The Impact of incarceration on wage mobility and inequality. Am Sociol Rev 67:526–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Western B, Kling JR, Weiman DF (2001) The labormarket consequences of incarceration. Crime Delinq 47:410–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Williams KR, Hawkins R (1986) Perceptual research on general deterrence: a critical overview. Law Soc Rev 20:545–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Carnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.State of AlaskaAnchorageUSA

Personalised recommendations