3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A systematic review of criminal recidivism rates worldwide: 3-year update

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background: Comparing recidivism rates between countries may provide useful information about the relative effectiveness of different criminal justice policies. A previous 2015 review identified criminal recidivism data for 18 countries and found little consistency in outcome definitions and time periods. We aimed to update recidivism rates in prisoners internationally.

          Methods: We conducted a systematic review of criminal recidivism rates in prisoners and followed PRISMA guidelines. Using five bibliographic indexes, we carried out non-country-specific and targeted searches for 50 countries with the largest total prison populations. We included reports and studies of released prisoners that reported re-arrest, reconviction and reincarceration rates. Meta-analysis was not possible due to multiple sources of heterogeneity.

          Results: We identified criminal recidivism information for 23 countries. Of the 50 countries with the largest prison populations, 10 reported recidivism rates for prisoners. The most commonly reported outcome was the 2-year reconviction rate. We were able to examine reconviction between different time periods for 11 countries and found that most reported small changes in official recidivism rates. Overall, for 2-year follow-up period, reported re-arrest rates were between 26% and 60%, reconviction rates ranged from 20% to 63%, and reimprisonment rates varied from 14 to 45%.

          Conclusions: Although some countries have made efforts to improve reporting, recidivism rates are not comparable between countries. Criminal justice agencies should consider using reporting guidelines described here to update their data.

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          A Systematic Review of Criminal Recidivism Rates Worldwide: Current Difficulties and Recommendations for Best Practice

          Objectives To systematically review recidivism rates internationally, report whether they are comparable and, on the basis of this, develop best reporting guidelines for recidivism. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Google Web, and Google Scholar search engines for recidivism rates around the world, using both non-country-specific searches as well as targeted searches for the 20 countries with the largest total prison populations worldwide. Results We identified recidivism data for 18 countries. Of the 20 countries with the largest prison populations, only 2 reported repeat offending rates. The most commonly reported outcome was 2-year reconviction rates in prisoners. Sample selection and definitions of recidivism varied widely, and few countries were comparable. Conclusions Recidivism data are currently not valid for international comparisons. Justice Departments should consider using the reporting guidelines developed in this paper to report their data.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found

            Overcrowding and its impact on prison conditions and health

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              The Costs of Healthcare in Prison and Custody: Systematic Review of Current Estimates and Proposed Guidelines for Future Reporting

              Aims: We aimed to review prison healthcare expenditure internationally. Objectives: To systematically review healthcare spending on prisoners worldwide, examine comparability between countries, and develop guidelines to improve reporting. Methods: Five bibliographic indexes (International Monetary Fund, ProQuest: Statistical Abstracts of the World, PubMed, Google Scholar, and JSTOR) were searched for the costs of prison and prison healthcare, supplemented with country-specific searches for the 20 countries with the highest prison populations. Information on overall healthcare costs, their breakdown by categories, and their proportion to overall prison expenditure was extracted. PRISMA guidelines were followed. Results: Prison healthcare expenditure data was identified for 10 countries, and overall operating costs were reported for 12 countries. The most commonly reported healthcare cost was for primary medical care. Healthcare costs reporting varied widely, and few countries were comparable. We developed a set of guidelines for consistent and transparent reporting of healthcare costs. Conclusions: Few countries report the costs of healthcare services in prison. When reported, there is a lack of clarity and consistency as to what is included. Using the proposed reporting guidelines would enable national trends and international comparisons to be investigated, and any recommended benchmarks to be monitored.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Data CurationRole: Formal AnalysisRole: InvestigationRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – Original Draft Preparation
                Role: Data CurationRole: InvestigationRole: Visualization
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding AcquisitionRole: MethodologyRole: Project AdministrationRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Journal
                Wellcome Open Res
                Wellcome Open Res
                Wellcome Open Res
                Wellcome Open Research
                F1000 Research Limited (London, UK )
                2398-502X
                3 November 2020
                2019
                : 4
                : 28
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, OX3 7JX, UK
                [2 ]College of Arts and Sciences, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, NC 27599, USA
                [1 ]Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
                [2 ]Health Disparities and Public Policy, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
                [1 ]Institut national de psychiatrie légale Philippe-Pinel, Montréal, QC, Canada
                [2 ]Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada
                [3 ]Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
                [1 ]Institut national de psychiatrie légale Philippe-Pinel, Montréal, QC, Canada
                [2 ]Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada
                [3 ]Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
                [1 ]Prisons Research Centre, Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
                University of Oxford, UK
                [1 ]Institut national de psychiatrie légale Philippe-Pinel, Montréal, QC, Canada
                [2 ]Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada
                [3 ]Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
                University of Oxford, UK
                [1 ]Health Disparities and Public Policy, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
                [2 ]Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
                University of Oxford, UK
                Author notes

                No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: We declare no competing interests.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: We declare no competing interests.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: We declare no competing interests.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4936-2857
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5383-5365
                Article
                10.12688/wellcomeopenres.14970.3
                6743246
                31544154
                53c260e0-0ef5-4ee5-95c8-567632d3c744
                Copyright: © 2020 Yukhnenko D et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 5 October 2020
                Funding
                Funded by: Wellcome Trust
                Award ID: 202836
                SF is funded by the Wellcome Trust (grant number 202836).
                The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Note
                Articles

                prison,prisoners,recidivism,repeat offending,re-arrest,reconviction,reimprisonment,systematic review

                Comments

                Comment on this article