Is custody an effective sentencing option for the UK? Evidence from a meta-analysis of existing studies

Abstract

Prison numbers in the UK are at record levels and continue to rise. The rise in prison numbers has led to a renewed focus on the relative effectiveness of different sentences and in particular the effectiveness of prison when compared to alternative, community-based, sentences. The aim of this research is to test the hypothesis that prisons are an effective means of reducing re-offending in the UK. A review of existing studies identified 91 estimates of the effect on re-offending of prison for adults when compared against alternative sentences and 15 estimates of the effect on re-offending of prisons for juveniles when compared against alternative sentences. A meta-analysis was conducted on the different combinations of intervention and counterfactual information identified in the literature. The analysis suggests that the following alternative sentences for adult offenders reduce re-offending when compared to prison: residential drug treatment, surveillance, surveillance with drug treatment, prison in combination with educational/vocational interventions, prison in combination with behavioural interventions, prison in combination with sex offender treatment, and prison in combination with drug treatment. The analysis also identified the following alternative sentences for juvenile offenders which reduced re-offending when compared with prison: community supervision with victim reparation, and a community programme with aftercare and surveillance. The hypothesis that prisons are an effective means of reducing re-offending in the UK is generally rejected.

Keywords

community sentence custody effect efficacy meta-analysis prison re-offending

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aos, S. , P. Phipps , R. Barnoski and R. Lieb (2001) The Comparative Costs and Benefits of Programs to Reduce Crime, Document Number: 01-05-1201. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. URL (accessed 1 November 2007): http://www.wa.gov/wsipp

Belenko, S. , C. Foltz , M.A. Lang , and H. Sung (2004) `Recidivism Among High-Risk Drug Felons: A Longitudinal Analysis Following Residential Treatment', Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 1(2): 106-32.

Bonta J. , S. Wallace-Capretta and J. Rooney (2000) `Can Electronic Monitoring Make a Difference? An Evaluation of Three Canadian Programs', Crime and Delinquency 46(1): 61-75.

Bottcher, J. (2005) `Examining the Effectiveness of Boot Camps: A Randomized Experiment with a Long-Term Follow Up', Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 42(3): 309-32.

Carter, P. (2003) Managing Offenders, Reducing Crime: A New Approach . London: Home Office.

Carter, P. (2007) Securing the Future: Proposals for the Efficient and Sustainable Use of Custody in England and Wales. London : Cabinet Office.

Courtright, K.E. , B.L. Berg and R.J. Mutchnick (1997) `Effects of House Arrest With Electronic Monitoring on DUI Offenders', Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 24(3/4): 35-51.

Dole, V.P. , J.W. Robinson , J. Orraca , E. Towns , P. Searcy and E. Caine (1969) `Methadone Treatment of Randomly selected Criminal Addicts', New England Journal of Medicine 280: 1372-5.

Dynia, P. and H. Sung (2000) `The Safety and Effectiveness of Diverting Felony Drug Offenders to Residential Treatment as Measured by Recidivism', Criminal Justice Policy Review 11: 299-311.

10.

Farrington, D.P. and B.C. Welsh (2005) `Randomized Experiments in Criminology: What have we Learned in the Last Two Decades?', Journal of Experimental Criminology 1(1): 9-38.

11.

Halliday, J. (2001) Making Punishments Work: Report of a Review of the Sentencing Framework for England and Wales. London : Home Office.

12.

Home Office (2005) The Impact of Corrections on Re-offending: A Review of `What Works'. London: Home Office.

13.

International Centre for Prison Studies (2008 ) World Prison Briefing. URL (accessed 17 April 2008): http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/law/research/icps/worldbrief/

14.

Kraus J. (1974) `A Comparison of Corrective Effects of Probation and Detention on Male Juvenile Offenders', International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 25(2): 130-8.

15.

Looman, J. , J. Abracen and T. Nicholaichuk (2000) `Recidivism among Treated Sexual Offenders and Matched Controls: Data from the Regional Treatment Centre' , Journal of Interpersonal Violence 15(3): 279-90.

16.

McCollister, K.E. , M.T. French , M.L. Prendergast , E. Hall and S. Sacks (2004) `Long-term Cost-effectiveness of Addiction Treatment for Criminal Offenders', Justice Quarterly 21(3): 659-79.

17.

McTavish, T.H. (1996) The Effectiveness of Sexual Offender Treatment for Juveniles as Measured by Recidivism: A Meta-analysis. URL (accessed July 2007): http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses/available/etd-06172005-130331/unrestricted/Reitzel_L_dissertation_text.pdf

18.

Marsh, K. and C. Fox (forthcoming) `The Benefit and Cost of Prison in the UK. The Results of a Model of Lifetime Re-offending', The Journal of Experimental Criminology.

19.

Martin, S. and F. Scarpitti (1993) `An Intensive Case Management Approach for Paroled IV Drug Users', The Journal of Drug Issues 23(1): 43-59.

20.

National Criminal Justice Reference Service Juvenile Justice Bulletin (1999) Recent Juvenile Aftercare Initiatives: The Michigan Nokomis Challenge Programme. URL (accessed July 2008): http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/jjbulletin/9907_3/mich.html

21.

Needels, K. , S.J. Burdumy and J. Burghardt (2005) `Community Case Management for Former Jail Inmates: Its Impact On Rearrest, Drug Use and HIV Risk', Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 82(3): 420-33.

22.

Nicholaichuk, T. , A. Gordon , D. Gu and S. Wong (2000) `Outcome of an Institutional Sexual Offender Treatment Program: A Comparison between Treated and Matched Untreated Offenders', Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment 12(2): 139-53..

23.

Prendergast M.L. , E.A. Hall , H.K. Wexler , G. Melnick and Y. Cao (2004) `Amity Prison Based Therapeutic Community: 5 Year Outcomes', The Prison Journal 84: 36-60.

24.

Prison Reform Trust (2007) Bromley Briefings Prison Factfile. London: Prison Reform Trust.

25.

Schweitzer, R. and J. Dwyer (2003) `Sex Crime Recidivism: Evaluation of a Sexual Offender Treatment Program', Journal of Interpersonal Violence 18(11): 1292-1310.

26.

Sherman, L.W. , D. Gottfredson , D. MacKenzie , J. Eck , P. Reuter , and S. Bushway (1997) Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising, Office of Justice Programs Research Report Washington DC: US Department of Justice.

27.

Smith, P. , C. Goggin , and P. Gendreau (2002) The Effects of Prison Sentences and Intermediate Sanctions on Recidivism: General Effects and Individual Differences 2001-02 . Gatineau, Canada: Public Works and Government Services Canada.

28.

Villettaz, P. , M. Killias and I. Zoder (2006) The Effects of Custodial vs. Non-Custodial Sentences on Re-Offending: A Systematic Review of the State of Knowledge. A Report to the Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group. URL (accessed 17 April 2008): www.campbellcollaboration.org

29.

Weisburd, D. , L. Sherman and A. Petrosino (1990) Registry of Randomized Criminal Justice Experiments in Sanctions. Unpublished report, Rutgers University, University of Maryland and Crime Control Institute.

30.

Wexler, H.K. , G. De Leon , D. Kressel , and J. Peters (1999) `Outcome Evaluation of a Prison Therapeutic Community for Substance Abuse Treatment', Criminal Justice and Behaviour 26(2): 147-67.