Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T03:04:09.027Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 30 - Risk Factors for Recidivism in Individuals Receiving Community Sentences: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

from Part V - Criminal Justice and Social Considerations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2021

Katherine Warburton
Affiliation:
University of California, Davis
Stephen M. Stahl
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
Get access

Summary

Noncustodial sentences are the commonest type of court sanction in many countries. Offender management and rehabilitation programmes aim to prevent recidivism and the further criminalization of individuals receiving community sentences. Although the ultimate goal of these programmes is to ensure public safety and to ease the economic burden on justice systems, they assume different rates of repeat criminal behaviours and employ different approaches. The criminogenic needs of individuals (the characteristics of an individual that directly relate to the likelihood of recidivism) are typically broken down into static (nonmodifiable) and dynamic (modifiable) risk factors. Static risk factors are unchanging characteristics of an individual and include gender, age, and prior criminal history.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Pew Center on the States. State of Recidivism: The Revolving Door of America’s Prisons. Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts; 2011.Google Scholar
Ministry of Justice. Proven reoffending statistics: January 2016 to March 2016. 2018. www.gov.uk/government/statistics/proven-reoffending-statistics-january-2016-to-march-2016 (accessed June 2020).Google Scholar
Visher, CA, Winterfield, L, Coggeshall, MB. Ex-offender employment programs and recidivism: a meta-analysis. J Exp Criminol. 2005; 1(3): 295316.Google Scholar
Landenberger, NA, Lipsey, MW. The positive effects of cognitive behavioral programs for offenders: a meta-analysis of factors associated with effective treatment. J Exp Criminol. 2005; 1(4): 451476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonta, J, Andrews, DA. Risk-need-responsivity model for offender assessment and rehabilitation. Public Safety Canada; 2007. www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/RNRModelForOffenderAssessmentAndRehabilitation.pdf (accessed June 2020).Google Scholar
Hanson, RK. Long-term recidivism studies show that desistance is the norm. Crim Justice Behav. 2018; 45(9): 13401346.Google Scholar
Clarke, MC, Peterson-Badali, M, Skilling, TA. The relationship between changes in dynamic risk factors and the predictive validity of risk assessments among youth offenders. Crim Justice Behav. 2017; 44(10): 13401355.Google Scholar
Central Statistics Office. Probation recidivism 2010 cohort. Central Statistics Office Ireland; 2016. www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/pror/probationrecidivism2010cohort/ (accessed June 2020).Google Scholar
Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention. Recidivism. www.bra.se/bra-in-english/home/crime-and-statistics/crime-statistics/recidivism.html (accessed June 2020).Google Scholar
Lurigio, AJ, Cho, YI, Swartz, JA, et al. Standardized assessment of substance-related, other psychiatric, and comorbid disorders among probationers. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2003; 47: 630652.Google Scholar
Olver, ME, Stockdale, KC, Wormith, JS.Thirty years of research on the Level of Service scales: a meta-analytic examination of predictive accuracy and sources of variability. Psychol Assess. 2014; 26(1): 156176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gendreau, P, Little, T, Goggin, C. A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: what works? Criminology. 1996; 34: 575608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanson, RK, Morton-Bourgon, KE. The characteristics of persistent sexual offenders: a meta-analysis of recidivism studies. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2005; 73(6): 11541163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bonta, J, Blais, J, Wilson, HA. A theoretically informed meta-analysis of the risk for general and violent recidivism for mentally disordered offenders. Aggress Violent Behav. 2014; 19(3): 278287.Google Scholar
Shamseer, D, Moher, D, Clarke, M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. Br Med J. 2015; 350: g7647.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, R, DiMatteo, MR. Meta-analysis: recent developments in quantitative methods for literature review. Annu Rev Psychol. 2001; 52: 5982.Google Scholar
Wells, GA, Shea, B, O’Connell, D, et al. Quality assessment scales for observational studies. 2004. www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp (accessed June 2020).Google Scholar
StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 15. College Station, TX: StataCorp LLC; 2017.Google Scholar
Boston College Department of Economics, Fisher, D. ADMETAN: Stata module to provide comprehensive meta-analysis. Statistical Software Components S458561. 2018.Google Scholar
Adams, S, Bostwick, L, Campbell, R. Examining Illinois Probationer Characteristics and Outcomes. Chicago, IL: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority; 2011.Google Scholar
Caudy, MS, Tillyer, MS, Tillyer, R. Jail versus probation: a gender-specific test of differential effectiveness and moderators of sanction effects. Crim Justice Behav. 2018; 45(7): 949968.Google Scholar
Department of Justice. Adult reconviction in Northern Ireland 2005. Northern Ireland, Belfast: Statistics and Research Branch, Department of Justice; 2011.Google Scholar
Grann, M, Danesh, J, Fazel, S. The association between psychiatric diagnosis and violent re-offending in adult offenders in the community. BMC Psychiatry. 2008; 8: 92.Google Scholar
Harris, P. The first-time adult-onset offender: findings from a community corrections cohort. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2011; 55(6): 949981.Google Scholar
Huebner, BM, Cobbina, J. The effect of drug use, drug treatment participation, and treatment completion on probationer recidivism. J Drug Issues. 2007; 37(3): 619641.Google Scholar
Humphrey, JA, Burford, G, Dye, MH. A longitudinal analysis of reparative probation and recidivism. Criminal Justice Studies. 2012; 25(2): 117130.Google Scholar
Maliek, NA. An Empirical Assessment of the Direct and Indirect Effects of Mental Health Disorders on Probation Outcomes (Thesis). The University of Texas at San Antonio: ProQuest Dissertations Publishing; 2017: 10617596.Google Scholar
Minor, KI, Wells, JB, Sims, C. Recidivism among federal probationers: predicting sentence violations. Fed Probat. 2003; 67(1): 3133.Google Scholar
North Carolina Sentencing & Advisory Commission. Correctional program evaluation: offenders placed on probation or released from prison in Fiscal Year 2015. 2018. www.nccourts.gov/assets/documents/publications/recidivism_2018.pdf?4VQBsstuyz U5dH1Ap7SJQiMe0zTKYU1G (accessed June 2020).Google Scholar
Olson, DE, Lurigio, AJ. Predicting probation outcomes: factors associated with probation rearrest, revocations, and technical violations during supervision. Justice Res Policy. 2000; 2(1): 7386.Google Scholar
Olson, DE, Alderden, M, Lurigio, AJ. Men are from Mars, women are from Venus: but what role does gender play in probationer recidivism? Justice Res Policy. 2003; 5(2): 3354.Google Scholar
Peillard, AMM, Correa, NM, Cháhuan, GW, Lacoa, JF. La Reincidencia en el Sistema Penitenciario Chileno. Santiago, Chile: Fundacion Paz Ciudadana; 2012.Google Scholar
Sims, B, Jones, M. Predicting success or failure on probation: factors associated with felony probation outcomes. Crime Delinq. 1997; 43(3): 314327.Google Scholar
Wood, M, Cattel, J, Hales, G, et al. Re-offending by Offenders on Community Orders: Results from the Offender Management Community Cohort Study. London, England: Ministry of Justice Analytical Series; 2015.Google Scholar
Fazel, S, Chang, Z, Fanshawe, T, et al. Prediction of violent reoffending on release from prison: derivation and external validation of a scalable tool. Lancet Psychiatry. 2016; 3(6): 535543.Google Scholar
Stahler, GJ, Mennis, J, Belenko, S, et al. Predicting recidivism for released state prison offenders: examining the influence of individual and neighborhood characteristics and spatial contagion on the likelihood of reincarceration. Crim Justice Behav. 2013; 40(6): 690711.Google Scholar
Ersche, KD, Turton, AJ, Chamberlain, SR, et al. Cognitive dysfunction and anxious-impulsive personality traits are endophenotypes for drug dependence. Am J Psychiatry. 2012; 169(9): 926–936.Google Scholar
Arseneault, L, Moffit, TE, Caspi, A. Mental disorders and violence in a total birth cohort: results from the Dunedin study. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2000; 57(10): 979986.Google Scholar
Sinha, R. Chronic stress, drug use, and vulnerability to addiction. Ann NY Acad Sci. 2008; 1141: 105130.Google Scholar
Hendricks, PS, Crawford, MS, Cropsey, KL, et al. The relationships of classic psychedelic use with criminal behavior in the United States adult population. J Psychopharmacol. 2018; 32(1): 3748.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chang, Z, Larsson, H, Lichtenstein, P, et al. Psychiatric disorders and violent reoffending: a national cohort study of convicted prisoners in Sweden. Lancet Psychiatry. 2015; 2(10): 891900.Google Scholar
Oram, S, Trevillion, K, Khalifeh, H, et al. Systematic review and metaanalysis of psychiatric disorder and the perpetration of partner violence. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2014; 23(4): 361376.Google Scholar
Fazel, S, Gulati, G, Linsell, L, et al. Schizophrenia and violence: systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2009; 6(8): e1000120.Google Scholar
Fitton, L, Yu, R, Fazel, S. Childhood maltreatment and violent outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2018; epub ahead of print: 1524838018795269. doi:10.1177/1524838018795269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fazel, S, Wolf, A, Yukhnenko, D. Recidivism reporting checklist. Open Sci Framework. 2019. doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/QVTFB.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×