A Meta‐analysis of the Predictors of Adult Offender Recidivism: What Works!*

Abstract

Meta‐analytic techniques were used to determine which predictor domains and actuarial assessment instruments were the best predictors of adult offender recidivism. One hundred and thirty‐one studies produced 1,141 correlations with recidivism. The strongest predictor domains were criminogenic needs, criminal history/history of antisocial behavior, social achievement, age/gender/race, and family factors. Less robust predictors included intellectual functioning, personal distress factors, and socioeconomic status in the family of origin. Dynamic predictor domains performed at least as well as the static domains. The LSI‐R was identified as the most useful actuarial measure. Recommendations for developing sound assessment practices in corrections are provided.

The Adolescence–Adulthood Transition and Desistance from Crime: Examining the Underlying Structure of Desistance

“…Conversely, desistance is expressed in probabilistic terms by considering the risk level of recidivism. This probabilistic perspective is theoretically relevant in the context of the adolescenceadulthood transition in samples of chronic, violent, and sex offenders because recidivism studies have consistently shown that young adults have higher recidivism rates (e.g., [25]). The length of the follow-up period is critical to the identification of recidivists because offenders remain at-risk of offending in the long-term and time-at-risk for reoffending has been incorporated in several validated instruments used in corrections and parole services to provide probability based risk estimates of recidivism.…”

Adapting judicial supervision to the risk level of drug offenders: Discharge and 6-month outcomes from a prospective matching study

“…Among drug-abusing offenders, the greatest risk factors for failure in rehabilitation include (1) being younger, (2) being male, (3) an earlier onset of crime or drug abuse, (4) multiple prior criminal arrests, (5) a co-morbid diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder (APD) or psychopathy, or (6) having previously failed in treatment (e.g., Gendreau et al, 1996;Marlowe et al, 2003a;Peters et al, 1999). It is unclear, however, whether these risk factors simply correlate with treatment outcomes or whether they moderate the effects of specific types of interventions.…”

An exception to the rule: Belief in redeemability, desistance signals, and the employer’s decision to hire a job applicant with a criminal record

“…Impression formation transpires via the coalescence of subjective stereotypical beliefs, based on categorical characteristics such as identifiable race or a criminal record, as well as objective personal attributes unique to the individual. Applied to hiring decisions, employers may stereotypically believe that past offending is a good indicator of future offending (Gendreau, Little & Goggin, 1996). However, impressions about an ex-offender's employability will likely alter where counter-stereotypic personal attributes are evident, signifying the ex-offender job applicant as 'an exception to the rule'.…”