The Effects on Re‐offending of Custodial vs. Non‐custodial Sanctions: An Updated Systematic Review of the State of Knowledge

Abstract

This Campbell systematic review compares effects of custodial and non‐custodial sentences on re‐offending. The authors found 14 high‐quality studies, including three randomised controlled trials and two natural experiments. Imprisonment is no more effective than community‐based sanctions in reducing re‐offending. Despite this evidence, almost all societies across the world continue to use custodial sentences as the main crime control strategy. In terms of rehabilitation, short confinement is not better or worse than “alternative” solutions. 1 Synopsis As part of a broad initiative of systematic reviews of experimental or quasi‐experimental evaluations of interventions in the field of crime prevention and the treatment of offenders, our work consisted in searching through all available databases for evidence concerning the effects of custodial and non‐custodial sanctions on re‐offending. For this purpose, we examined, in 2006, more than 3,000 abstracts, and identified more than 300 possibly eligible studies. For the update, nearly 100 additional potentially eligible studies published or completed between 2003 and 2013 have been identified. For the update, 10 matched‐pair design studies and one RCT have been abstracted. One study (Bergman 1976) that, in 2006, had been classified as an RCT turned out, after closer examination, to have been quasi‐experimental with respect to the comparison of the custodial and the non‐custodial groups. As a result, it has been “downgraded” and included among the quasi‐experimental studies in this update. The findings of the update confirm one of the major results of the first report, namely that the rate of re‐offending after a non‐custodial sanction is lower than after a custodial sanction in most comparisons. However, this is true mostly for quasi‐experimental studies using weaker designs, whereas experimental evaluations and natural experiments yield results that are less favourable to non‐custodial sanctions. It can be concluded that results in favour of non‐custodial sanctions in the majority of quasi‐experimental studies may reflect insufficient control of pre‐intervention differences between prisoners and those serving “alternative” sanctions. 2 Abstract BACKGROUNDThroughout the Western World, community‐based sanctions have become a popular and widely used alternative to custodial sentences. There have been many comparisons of rates of reconviction among former prisoners and those who have served any kind of community sanction. So far, the comparative effects on re‐offending of custodial and non‐custodial sanctions are largely unknown, due to many uncontrolled variables. OBJECTIVEThe objective is to assess the relative effects of custodial sanctions (imprisonment) and non‐custodial (“alternative” or “community”) sanctions on re‐offending. By “custodial” we understand any sanction where offenders are deprived of freedom of movement, i.e. placed in a closed residential setting not their home, no matter whether they are allowed to leave these premises during the day or over weeke...

Relationship Between Prison Length of Stay and Recidivism: A Study Using Regression Discontinuity and Instrumental Variables With Multiple Break Points

“…explanation of why we observe effect size variations across imprisonment studies found in all the systematic reviews (Nagin et al, 2009;Smith et al, 2002;Villettaz et al, 2015).…”

“…Most scholarship on imprisonment has been aimed at evaluating the impact of the in/out decision—comparing a term of imprisonment with an alternative sanction (Nagin, Cullen, and Jonson, ; Smith, Gendreau, and Goggin, ; Villettaz, Gillieron, and Killias, ). Although a few rigorous studies of the prison in/out decision exist, there are even fewer rigorous studies on the effect of prison length of stay on recidivism (Nagin et al., ).…”

A methodology for systematic mapping in environmental sciences

“…In these sectors a suite of 'systematic evidence synthesis' methodologies have been developed to gather and collate evidence, and sometimes appraise studies and synthesise study results e.g. [9][10][11]. Evidence synthesis methods follow rigorous, objective and transparent processes that, unlike traditional literature reviews, aim to reduce reviewer selection bias and publication bias, and enable the reader to view all the decisions made for inclusion and appraisal of research, and how conclusions have been reached.…”

The Second Convict Age: Explaining the Return of Mass Imprisonment in Australia

“…A systematic review finds that prison sentences are no more effective than non‐custodial approaches, such as community work, electronic monitoring and fines (Villettaz et al . , 2015). Although there is some evidence that prison education programs can be effective (see Davis et al .…”