A Deceptively Simple Measure in a Complex and Contentious System

by Sumita (Mira) Das and Jeffrey A. Butts
John Jay College Research and Evaluation Center
June 2026

The foundations of recidivism as an outcome measure presume that interventions by the criminal justice system reduce future criminality. As interventions become more severe, reaching a pinnacle with incarceration, the effects on criminality should increase. Yet, criminological research casts doubt on this basic premise. The research literature is replete with negative findings about the deterrent effects of incarceration, including many studies that even find criminogenic effects (Loeffler and Nagin 2022). The pattern of evidence would seem to undermine the essential policy logic underlying recidivism as an outcome measure. If the strongest interventions deployed by criminal justice systems do not reliably reduce recidivism, does it make sense to use recidivism as the principal benchmark of effectiveness?

Outcome measures in criminal justice must also be equitable and responsive to the cultural, socio-economic, and demographic contexts that affect operations and decision-making in the American justice system. Recidivism would be more appropriate as an outcome measure when those who rely on it consider the longstanding limitations of criminal justice systems and how those limitations shape basic performance metrics.

[ read the report at JohnJayREC.nyc ]