Predictors of recidivism following release from custody: a meta-analysis

Abstract

The reliable identification of those offenders at greatest risk of post-release recidivism is critically important given the emotional and financial costs associated with offending behaviour. The aim of the current study was to synthesise the available literature on risk predictors to identify which factors are predictive of recidivism in adult offenders, in the four years following release from custody. After systematically reviewing the literature and selecting those at least risk of bias, 43 high quality studies were subjected to meta-analysis. Sufficient data pertaining to 21 factors were available. Consistent with Bonta and Andrews (2017), prominent factors associated with the 'central eight' risk domains for general recidivism, particularly those indicative of antisocial potential, produced the largest effect sizes. These included factors such as an extensive criminal history (e.g., number of previous incarcerations), rule violations whilst under supervision, and holding procriminal attitudes. Overall, static risk factors were superior to dynamic in predicting recidivism. We explore these findings in the context of the limitations of the risk predictor literature and argue that ongoing behavioural monitoring is a promising means of identifying real-time changes in the antisocial potential of prisoners released to the community.

A Look at the Difficulty and Predictive Validity of LS/CMI Items With Rasch Modeling

“…It may be that problematic behaviors in school are better predictors of recidivism than educational level, which may confound multiple noncriminogenic characteristics, such as IQ, motivation, or learning style. A recent meta-analysis of risk factors for recidivism reached results similar to ours concerning the mediocre predictive validity of educational level (Goodley et al, 2022). As to Item 22 (No prosocial activities), there seemed to be no sample selection explanations for its lackluster predictive validity.…”

“…The two most predictive items were Items 7 and 8, which covered, respectively, institutional misconduct and breach of release conditions. The behaviors described by these items are known risk factors of general recidivism (Goodley et al, 2022) and figure in multiple criminological risk scales, such as the STABLE-2007 (Brankley et al, 2021; Hanson et al, 2007) and the PCL-R. In addition, an upcoming study based on machine learning algorithms concluded that these two items were the most predictive of general recidivism in a sample very similar to the one used in the current study (Arbour et al, 2022).…”

“…As such, results from the current study indicate that the predictive validity of items may be a better basis upon which to re-weight items than Rasch difficulty. Second, should the lack of predictive validity of items related to educational level be replicated in other samples, it might be worthwhile to rethink their presence in the scale, especially in light of meta-analyses that challenged the association between educational level and delinquency (Goodley et al, 2022). Third, predictive validity analyses revealed that some items (7 and 8) were particularly indicative of recidivism potential.…”

Providing substance use disorder treatment in correctional settings: knowledge gaps and proposed research priorities—overview and commentary

“…Relatedly, a recent meta-analysis by Goodley et al [27], regarding predictors of recidivism following release from custody, found that while there is significant heterogeneity with respect to predictors of recidivism across the extant literature, the authors identified 17 factors with sufficient evidence from the published studies reviewed that were associated with either an increase or decrease in recidivism. Importantly, many of these factors were not necessarily directly related to SUD and were generally categorized by the authors into factors related to: History of Criminal Behavior, Antisocial Personality Pattern, Antisocial Cognitions and Antisocial Companions, all of which have been previously described by Andrews and colleagues [1,27]. Two additional factors related to increased risk for recidivism identified by Goodley et al included history of mental illness and race, with the latter posited to reflect the larger context of racial inequality in CJ involvement in the US [27].…”

“…Importantly, many of these factors were not necessarily directly related to SUD and were generally categorized by the authors into factors related to: History of Criminal Behavior, Antisocial Personality Pattern, Antisocial Cognitions and Antisocial Companions, all of which have been previously described by Andrews and colleagues [1,27]. Two additional factors related to increased risk for recidivism identified by Goodley et al included history of mental illness and race, with the latter posited to reflect the larger context of racial inequality in CJ involvement in the US [27]. It is also important to acknowledge that SUD treatment alone may be unlikely to significantly impact many of the factors identified above by Goodley et al, which is why we believe that recidivism may not be the most appropriate outcome to assess for CJ-involved individuals with an SUD.…”