Spotlight on Criminal Justice: Earned and Good Time Credit Programs
State legislative sessions are now fully underway, and newly elected legislators are looking to make their mark on the policy areas that are most important to their constituents (and to themselves). Public safety is top of mind for many—particularly how accountability within the criminal justice system can help keep communities safe.
One of the best ways to ensure offender accountability and reduce reoffense is to establish or expand “good time credit” programs, which incentivize compliant and productive behavior of individuals while incarcerated, and “earned time credit” programs, which incentivize successful participation in evidence-based recidivism-reduction (EBRR) programs.
While distinct, these programs operate in a similar way to allow incarcerated individuals to accrue credits toward early release. This often means transfer to a less-restrictive form of custody, such as a halfway house or home confinement.
These programs build on decades of research indicating that improving prison conduct and increasing participation in EBRR programming for all incarcerated individuals can lower reoffense rates and increase opportunities for the 95 percent who will eventually return to our communities. They also recognize that the certainty of being caught and receiving swift punishment—not the severity of a sentence—is what deters most criminal activity.
As of 2021, at least 38 states and the federal government had enacted some type of good or earned time credit program (sometimes both). The way these programs are structured varies dramatically from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, as does the range of time that an individual is able to accrue toward early release from incarceration.
Generally, good time credit programs are structured around a set number of days that an incarcerated individual can earn toward their sentence reduction for good behavior—often by percentage of the full sentence or by a set number of days earned per month or per year of the sentence. Earned time credit programs—which award credit for things like education, job training, or treatment—are sometimes structured in a similar way. One-time credit programs also exist in a small number of states or alongside earned time credit programs.
Variety exists in the allowable extent of these programs, as well. States like Virginia, Mississippi, Florida, and Iowa restrict their maximum credit accrual amounts to less than 20 percent of the original sentence, while Alabama, California, Oklahoma, and Kentucky allow good or earned time credits to offset more than 70 percent of the original sentence. Most states fall within the 30 to 60 percent range.
The primary threat to these programs is the implementation of (or return to) “truth-in-sentencing” (TIS) laws. Popular during the late 20th century’s “war on drugs,” these laws require that a certain percentage—often 85 percent—of an individual’s original sentence must be served before they can be considered for early release from incarceration. TIS laws, which severely limit parole eligibility as well as credit-based eligibility, reached their peak in the 1990s when more than 30 states had some form of these laws on the books.
While this approach may sound appealing in terms of the certainty of punishment, it does not account for the more necessary role of the carceral system: accountability. Those most interested in seeing offenders “pay their dues” to society would do well to make sure they include daily improvement efforts and a commitment not to cause further harm. Good and earned time credit programs incentivize this accountability.
TIS laws actually undermine good time credit and earned time credit programs, which allow earlier opportunities for release than the standard 85 percent of time behind bars. This comes at a significant cost to public safety and safety inside of prisons. Research has found that when Arizona eliminated earned time credits, the state saw a 50 percent increase in rule infractions during incarceration as well as a double-digit reduction in education program enrollment. Similarly, restricting incentives in Georgia resulted in a 14 percent decline in rehabilitative programming participation and a recidivism increase of 5 to 7 percent.
Furthermore, continued incarceration beyond the point of ensuring public safety creates quickly diminishing returns on states’ fiscal investments, which already face budgetary shortfalls in 2025 due to most pandemic-era funding from the federal government drying up or expiring.
Thankfully, although some states are behind the curve in rejecting TIS laws, many are looking at what more they can do to incentivize rehabilitation and success after incarceration.
Beyond good and earned time credits, innovation-minded legislators are looking past accrued time for early release to consider resentencing laws—debatably more powerful incentives for compliance and rehabilitation. Often referred to as “second look” laws, resentencing laws most commonly allow either defendant- or prosecutor-initiated petitions to trigger a review process that determines whether eligible individuals who have served significant portions of their sentences should receive consideration for a sentence-reduction hearing. The accrual of good and earned time credits demonstrates a commitment to improvement and rehabilitation and can be a major factor in the determinations made in these cases.
Overall, focusing on how carceral practices and programming can encourage good behavior and constructive activity inside of prisons continues to prove critical—not only for in-prison safety, but also for the safety of communities outside of prison walls. Good time credit programs, earned time credit programs, and others should continue to be improved and protected.