Like what you read here? Send a free subscription to a friend. Type in his/her email address in the square at right (beneath “Email Subscription”) and then click on “Sign me up!”
Got a news lead for Louisiana Voice to investigate? Have a suggestion for a story? Your identity will never be revealed. Just send an email to louisianavoice@cox.net
BATON ROUGE (CNS)—Our Rhodes Scholar governor may have employed some rather unique mathematical machinations to arrive at what the Baton Rouge Advocate called a “stunning statistic.” Jindal, amending an earlier figure, now says the state’s first- and second-year prisoner recidivism rate has dropped by 33 percent.
Jindal used the figure to bolster his program to ease the release of some nonviolent prisoners as a cost-savings measure and to reduce recidivism (repeat offenders who are returned to prison).
The only problem is he used what he referred to as “first- and second-year recidivism” to arrive at his figure. Truth be told, there is no such thing as first- and second-year recidivism. Recidivism rate, by definition, means the ratio of the number of recidivists to the number of felons who return to incarceration “during the specified period,” usually five years, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
Even Department of Corrections Secretary Jimmy LeBlanc said Louisiana normally uses a five-year comparison because it offers a more accurate picture. At a Jan. 20 new conference, for example, Jindal cited a five-year recidivism rate for the state of 48 percent, a figure he now considers too high.
LeBlanc did say that some states measure recidivism rates on a three-year basis. He said, however that five years “is a better reflection” of the true recidivism rate.
Corrections Department spokesperson Pam LaBorde said using a fewer number of years, as was done by Jindal, generally produces a lower recidivism rate.
For example, if 100 prisoners were released and 20 were back in prison the next year, that would be a recidivism rate of 20 percent. But if another 20 of the original 100 recidivated in year three, the recidivism rate of the original 100 would be 40 percent. Likewise if another 20 were recidivated the fourth year, the rate would be 60 percent.
Jindal press secretary Kyle Plotkin said Jindal used the first- and second-year rates because he has only been in office for three years. He said the 33 percent rate proves that some of the “reentry programs” begun by Jindal are working.
But, LeBlanc, appearing to refute his boss, said, “Some who do not come back after the first year may come back after the fourth year.” That being said, the “stunning statistic” to which the Advocate alluded may turn out to be “stunning” only in the clever use of smoke and mirrors employed to arrive at the figure.
As Mark Twain once observed, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
Like Louisiana Music? Be sure to check out Louisiana Rocks! The True Genesis of Rock & Roll! This book is the only complete history of all genres of Louisiana rock and roll. Re-live all those great old songs that used to play late nights on WTIX, WNOE, KAAY. Learn about all the great artists like Elvis, Johnny Cash, Jim Reeves, D.J. Fontana, Floyd Cramer, and Hank Williams who got their start on the Louisiana Hayride. Check your local bookstore or log onto http://www.louisianarockstomaswell.com.
Louisiana Voice 
Drinking the Advocate Kool Aid.
If you read the press release regarding the Pew announcement, there is full disclosure that the recidivism rates cited are for the first and second years.
The PR also states that the five-year recidivism rate is 48 percent without reform measures in place. Would you have him make up five year numbers?
By all accounts, five years is what we should be looking for. That data doesn’t exist yet — and even you would have to admit that it would be unfair to include numbers from the previous administration.
That doesn’t mean, though, you can’t measure 1-4 year rates. First and second year numbers show that reforms are working. It seems your criticism and Michelle’s article are about three years premature, if relevant at all.
It’s just another opportunity to bash the Governor, which you seem to enjoy. Criticism is fair, if warranted. The facts don’t support it in this case.
First of all, “That data doesn’t exist yet” is grammatically incorrect. The word data is plural so it should “Those data don’t exist yet…” or “That datum doesn’t exist yet.”
That notwithstanding, first and second year numbers do not show that “reforms are working.” At best those numbers are inconclusive. Even the governor’s secretary of corrections said five-year rates are more accurate. Corrections Department spokesperson Pam LaBorde said using numbers based on fewer years produces a lower recidivism rate and that lower rate is, by definition, artificially induced. The corrections secretary is appointed by Jindal so what possible motive could he have to refute his boss other than speaking out in the interest of accuracy?
Jindal originally cited a five-year 48 percent recidivism rate but he arbitrarily decided that was too high for his political agenda.
I have not drunk the Advocate’s Kool-Aid, and I certainly have not drunk Jindal’s.