Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 8:48 pm
Time: 8:48 pm
Results for meta-analysis
3 results foundAuthor: Jonson, Cheryl Lero Title: The Impact of Imprisonment on Reoffending: A Meta-Analysis Summary: In the early 1970s, state and federal prison populations were under 200,000, with incarceration rates having remained relatively stable for a half century. For a variety of reasons (e.g., increased crime rates, changed political context, the "get tough" movement), the United States entered a period mass incarceration. The number of inmates in state and federal prisons increased 600 percent to over 1.5 million. Counting jail populations, the daily count of Americans behind bars currently stands at over 2.4 million;or about 1 in every 100 adults. However, despite the large number of people placed behind bars, little research has been conducted to determine the impact of imprisonment on the reoffending behavior of individuals placed behind bars. Within this context, this dissertation focus on a three central empirical questions that stand at the heart of the mass imprisonment movement: 1) When an offender is imprisoned as opposed to being given an alternative sanction (e.g., probation), is the person less likely to reoffend?, 2) Does incarcerating offenders for longer periods of time result in a greater reduction in recidivism?, and 3) Does placement in facilities with harsher conditions (e.g., fewer visitations, more restrictions) have a larger deterrent effect when compared to placement in facilities with less harsh conditions? To address the three research questions, this dissertation used meta-analytic techniques to complete a quantitative synthesis of 85 research studies. The overall mean effect size and weighted mean effect size of the three independent variables in question (i.e., non-custodial versus custodial sanctions; sentence length; harshness of conditions) were calculated to determine its impact on recidivism. Additionally, the impact of various moderators was also assessed. The results indicate that the specific deterrence argument for the use of prison is not empirically supported. When examining the impact of non-custodial and custodial sanctions on post-release reoffending, a 14 percent increase in recidivism was found for those sentenced to custodial sanctions as opposed to non-custodial sanctions. Thus, imprisonment was associated with an increase, rather than a decrease, in recidivism contradicting the predictions of specific deterrence theory. Similarly, placement in harsher prison conditions was associated with a 15 percent increase in post-release criminal behavior, failing to provide support for the specific deterrent argument. Only the analyses examining the impact of sentence length showed a deterrent effect, with longer sentences associated with a five percent decrease in recidivism. In light of these findings, the continued reliance on mass incarceration as a main response to crime is questioned. If the goal of imprisonment is to reduce the recidivism of those who are placed behind bars, this study has shown that this is not an empirically sound argument. In fact, placing individuals in prison and increasing the harshness of those prisons are contributing to the very problem it is attempting to solve. Consequently, the results suggest that an alternative crime control strategy to mass imprisonment needs to be employed if the ultimate goal is to reduce the post-release criminal behavior of those who enter the criminal justice system. Details: Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati, Division of Criminal Justice, 2010. 237p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed March 14, 2011 at: http://etd.ohiolink.edu/view.cgi?acc_num=ucin1285687754 Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://etd.ohiolink.edu/view.cgi?acc_num=ucin1285687754 Shelf Number: 121001 Keywords: ImprisonmentMeta-AnalysisRecidivism |
Author: Wong, Jennifer Title: Effectiveness of Street Gang Control Strategies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Evaluation Studies Summary: This systematic literature review and meta-analysis of evaluation studies on street gang control strategies focused on articles and reports from multiple bibliographic databases. The database search resulted in a total of 2,060 hits. Of the 297 studies that were examined, only 38 were retained for the systematic review after all screening procedures and inclusion criteria were applied. This list of studies was classified into a typology of five broad categories of street gang control strategies, including: 1) prevention, 2) gang activity regulation, 3) justice system based intervention, 4) comprehensive, and 5) holistic. A quantitative synthesis of program outcomes could not be undertaken because of the difficulty in pooling together studies that were incommensurate; it was considered substantively meaningless to produce a summary effect. Instead, a systematic review was undertaken. The systematic review of street gang control strategy evaluation studies revealed that findings in regard to effectiveness were not encouraging, especially for studies evaluating general prevention, and gang membership prevention programs. Overall, it was found that the more specific the targeted population, the more evaluations tended to show signs of effectiveness. Gang activity suppression programs was the only category of approaches in which evaluations found consistent positive outcomes. It was also found that the more chronic the gang problem, the more effective gang activity suppression approaches. None of the evaluations of comprehensive and holistic programs produced any strong evidence in terms of effectiveness. Probably the most surprising finding in this report concerned the Spergel Model, which was shown to be ineffective mostly due to implementation fidelity. Three major recommendations concerning gang control strategies were discussed: the need for consistent independent evaluations applying scientific methodologies; programs should be built on empirical research findings and not intuition or common sense; and evaluations should be an integral part of the implementation process of a program. Details: Ottawa: Public Safety Canada, 2012. 76p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 2, 2012 at: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2012/sp-ps/PS4-121-2012-eng.pdf Year: 2012 Country: International URL: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2012/sp-ps/PS4-121-2012-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 125446 Keywords: Gang Control StrategiesGangsMeta-Analysis |
Author: Henry, Kelli Title: Community Courts: The Research Literature A Review of Findings Summary: The first community court opened in Midtown Manhattan in 1993. Focusing on quality-of-life offenses, such as drug possession, shoplifting, vandalism, and prostitution, the Midtown Community Court sought to combine punishment and help, sentencing low-level offenders to perform visible community restitution, receive onsite social services, including drug treatment, counseling, and job training. There are currently more than 60 community court projects in operation worldwide. In the United States alone there are 33 while there are 17 in South Africa, 13 in England and Wales, and one each in Australia and Canada. Community courts seek to achieve a variety of goals, such as reduced crime, increased engagement between citizens and the courts, improved perceptions of neighborhood safety, greater accountability for lowlevel, “quality-of-life” offenders, speedier and more meaningful case resolutions, and cost savings. In advancing these goals, community courts generally make greater use of community-based sanctions than traditional courts (Hakuta, Soroushian, and Kralstein, 2008; Katz, 2009; Sviridoff et al., 2000; Weidner and Davis, 2000). Among a sample of 25 community courts surveyed in 2007, 92 percent routinely use community service mandates, and 84 percent routinely use social services mandates (Karafin, 2008). This paper reviews the research literature to date about community courts. Community court studies have employed a number of different research methods, reflecting the variation in community court models. Table 1, below, summarizes the major evaluations to date. Thus far, there have been 19 notable community court evaluations focusing on 11 community courts. Details: New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2011. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 12, 2012 at http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/Community%20Courts%20Research%20Lit.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/Community%20Courts%20Research%20Lit.pdf Shelf Number: 126917 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity CourtsCommunity SentencesCommunity ServiceMeta-Analysis |