PsycEXTRA Dataset 1994
DOI: 10.1037/e450512008-001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Explaining Reconviction Rates: A Critical Analysis: Home Office Research Study 136

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
111
0
4

Year Published

1998
1998
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 72 publications
(117 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
2
111
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…2 For purposes of simplicity, remission is ignored. 3 Figure 1 shows cumulative percentage reconvictions for custody and community penalties, assuming all prisoners spend seven months in custody (the real figure is 0.562 years on the latest figures given by Tarling 1993), and assuming the distribution of times at risk to reconviction given for parolees by Tarling (1993), and the proportion reconvicted after two years at risk as 50%, being close to the overall figure calculated by Lloyd et al (1994). 4 In the week when this paper was revised, a report of the Home Affairs Select…”
Section: Notes 1 This Paper Is a Modified Version Of A Lecture Presenmentioning
confidence: 85%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…2 For purposes of simplicity, remission is ignored. 3 Figure 1 shows cumulative percentage reconvictions for custody and community penalties, assuming all prisoners spend seven months in custody (the real figure is 0.562 years on the latest figures given by Tarling 1993), and assuming the distribution of times at risk to reconviction given for parolees by Tarling (1993), and the proportion reconvicted after two years at risk as 50%, being close to the overall figure calculated by Lloyd et al (1994). 4 In the week when this paper was revised, a report of the Home Affairs Select…”
Section: Notes 1 This Paper Is a Modified Version Of A Lecture Presenmentioning
confidence: 85%
“…Respectable studies statistically factor out such variables to yield a pure comparison. A Home Office study (Lloyd et al 1994) did this for prison and community penalties. The results are simplified as Table 1.…”
Section: The Vulnerability Of Current Probation Justificationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Studies conducted on samples taken from those sentenced to community penalties or released from prison in the early 1990s show that once allowance was made for differences in offending and sentencing history, age and sex, reconviction rates for the most commonly used forms of community supervision and imprisonment varied by only a percentage point or two, whereas there were large differences in the 'raw' rates (cf. Lloyd, Mair and Hough, 1994;Kershaw and Renshaw, 1997). This is why, when reconviction results are used (Cunliffe and Shepherd, 2007) show that the actual reconviction rate for those released in 2004 (64.7 per cent) was almost identical to that for those released in 2000 (64.8 per cent).…”
Section: F I G U R E 3 : C H a N G E S I N T H E O V E R A L L U S E mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The research data that are directly collected from criminals in community corrections through self-reported interview and ethical issues are given sufficient cautious. [23]; and (14) community correction outcome [24]. Except demographic information, all of items in scales are recoded as dichotomous variables (0, 1).…”
Section: A Rationalementioning
confidence: 99%