A Comparison of Corrective Effects of Probation and Detention on Male Juvenile Offenders

Kraus, J.

doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjc.a046510

Cited by 20 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The offenders were matched on age, age at current offence, age at time of first offence, number of previous convictions and number of previous committals to an institution. Kraus (1974) found rates of reoffending among first and recidivist offenders were generally higher for those given a detention sentence than for those given a sentence of probation. Offenders convicted of ‘take and use motor vehicle’ offences, however, committed more offences after probation than their matched counterparts did after detention.…”

Section: Prior Research On the Impact Of Incarcerationmentioning

confidence: 87%

The effect of custodial penalties on juvenile reoffending

McGrath¹,

Weatherburn

2012

Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study uses propensity score matching to test the proposition that imprisonment deters future criminal activity among juvenile offenders. Using data from all court appearances of juveniles in the NSW Children’s Court (Australia) between 2003 and 2004 ( N = 6196), the reoffending of a group of young offenders sentenced to control (i.e. custodial) orders ( N = 376) was compared to a matched group of offenders receiving community-based sanctions. No differences were observed between the two groups. The young offenders given detention orders had a slightly lower rate of reoffending, but this difference was not significant. The results of this study indicate that, over the time period examined in this study, the imposition of a custodial sentence had no effect on the risk of reoffending.

show abstract

Section: Prior Research On the Impact Of Incarcerationmentioning

confidence: 87%

The effect of custodial penalties on juvenile reoffending

McGrath¹,

Weatherburn

2012

Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We next explain the details of the specific mechanics of how a precision matching dataset of prison and Community Control cases was created from the 144,416 cases on a step-by-step basis. The reason for a detailed explanation is because most prior studies examining the effect of imprisonment on recidivism using this methodology fail to explain the technicalities associated conducting precision matching (Kraus 1974(Kraus , 1978(Kraus , 1981Muiluvuori 2001;Savoainen 1968;Smith and Akers 1993; for an exception, see Petersilia et al 1986). 8 This is problematic since readers may not be able to assess the accuracy of the precision matching process and to assist those who seek to replicate or improve upon previously used methods.…”

Section: Precision Matchingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the impact of imprisonment on recidivism

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives There is debate about the extent to which imprisonment deters reoffending. Further, while there is a large literature on the effects of imprisonment, methodologically sound and rigorous studies are the exception due to problematic sample characteristics and study designs. This paper assesses the effect of imprisonment on reoffending relative to a prison diversion program, Community Control, for over 79,000 felons sentenced to state prison and 65,000 offenders sentenced to Community Control between 1994 and 2002 in Florida. Methods The effect of imprisonment on recidivism is examined within one-, two-, and three-year follow-up periods using Logistic Regression, Precision Matching, and Propensity Score Matching.Results Findings indicate that imprisonment exerts a criminogenic effect and that this substantive conclusion holds across all three methods. Conclusions The main contribution of this study is that various methods yield results that are at least in a similar direction and support overall conclusions of prior literature that imprisonment has a criminogenic effect on reoffending compared to non-incarcerative sanctions. Limitations and directions for future research are noted.

show abstract

“…A Campbell Collaboration meta-analysis of institutional versus noninstitutional sentences (with studies that included adult or juvenile samples and with varying definitions of recidivism) concluded that, overall, noninstitutional programs are modestly more effective than institutional sentences (Villettaz et al, 2006), and, in at least one study, noninstitutional sentences were significantly better in reducing future offenses for first time juvenile offenders charged with property crimes (Kraus, 1974). Noninstitutional programs are also less costly resulting in better overall cost-benefit when effective (Henggeler, 2009;Henggeler, Cunningham, Pickrel, Schoenwald, & Brondino, 1996;Mojtabai & Zivin, 2003).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%