Predicting Recidivism: Base-Rates for Massachusetts Correctional Institution Concord

Metzner, Ralph; Weil, Gunther

doi:10.2307/1140984

Cited by 10 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The findings that the number of prior arrests and number of prior convictions were both included in the discriminant model are consistent with other studies in the literature (Gluecks, 1943;England, 1955;Metzner and Weil, 1963;Mandel et al, 1965;Carney, 1967). These studies have concluded that one's past involvement with the criminal justice system, as reflected in both arrests and convictions, is a strong determinant of whether future crimes will be committed.…”

Section: ----------2----------supporting

confidence: 89%

“…Research in the area of recidivism has repeatedly found age at admission to be a significant predictor, with younger offenders being more prone to continued criminal activity following release (Gluecks, 1940;Frum, 1958·;Metzner and Weil, 1963;Carney, 1967). The discriminant analysis in this study found age to be the most important factor for predicting recidivism for the Forest Camp subjects.…”

Section: ----------2----------mentioning

confidence: 49%

“…More specifically, Arnold (1965) found that the use of prediction tables only improved the chances of predicting parolees' success or failure an average of 12 percent beyond selection by pure chance. (Metzner and Weil, 1963;Carney, 1967). These expectancy categories are much like those utilized by insurance companies to project life expectancy.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Metzner and Weil (1963) The early work on predicting recidivism produced very few studies which tested the accuracy of the expectancy tables which were being utilized. Further, it appears that studies which made claims of validation were in actuality studies of reliability (Monachesi, 1950).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The problem of predicting recidivism has also been investigated from a developmental point of view. In every study which has investigated recidivism, age at first arrest has been found to be a highly significant factor (Carney, 1967;Metzner andWeil, 1963, Mandel et al, 1965). These studies conclude that juvenile delinquency is often a forerunner of adult crime.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

A longitudinal study of recidivism for 88 Forest Camp inmates

Manning¹

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to determine to what extent a group of 88 subjects, who were sentenced to the Forest Camp in the early seventies, remained law abiding in the ten years which followed their release.In addition to analyzing recidivist patterns, the study attempted to identify which variables were associated with subsequent recidivist and non-recidivist behavior and relate those findings to previous studies in the literature. These criteria are consistent with those established in other research in the literature (England, 1955;Moberg, 1972;Mandel et al, 1965;Brown, 1978). All of these studies agree that conviction and subsequent confinement are the most definitive criteria of recidivism.Of the 88 subjects, 37 had one or more convictions for which they were sentenced to either jail or prison; while 51 had remained law abiding for a 10 -12 year period. Thus, the recidivism rate for this group of subjects was 42%.Of the 37 recidivist subjects, 18 had not had a conviction within the last five years. In addition, 26 (70%) of the recidivist group successfully completed the probationary period which followed their release from the Forest Camp.Therefore, most of the recidivist activity occurred in a time period immediately following termination of probation.The second part of the analysis compared the personal characteristics and criminal history for a subset of 47 subjects for whom complete files could be located. Of the 47 subjects, 20 met the criteria of recidivist and 27 were nonrecidivist. Both univariate and multivariate techniques were utilized to test for differences between the two groups. The univariate analysis showed that the groups differed signifi-3 cantly on only two variables; marital status and parents economic status. However, when the multivariate technique of stepwise discriminant analysis was applied, the discriminant model which emerged contained five variables which discriminated between the recidivist and non-recidivist groups.These were: 1) Age at time sent to the Forest Camp; 2)Number of prior arrests; 3) Number of prior convictions; 4) Personality disorder; and 5) Drug use.Therefore, the non-recidivist group could be generally differentiated from the recidivist group in that they were:1) Younger by an average age of 21.6 months when entering the Forest Camp; 2) Had a lesser degree of criminal history than the recidivist group, as measured by the number of prior arrests and convictions, but had 18% more convictions per prior arrest than did the recidivist group; 3) Had more involvement with drugs, but fewer instances of documented personality disorders. In addition, the non-recidivist group served sentences which were on the average one-third longer than the recidivist subjects. The longer sentences appear to have had some degree of effectiveness particularly if drug use was involved.

show abstract

Section: ----------2----------supporting

confidence: 89%

Section: ----------2----------mentioning

confidence: 49%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations