Recidivism rates in individuals receiving community sentences: A systematic review

Autoři: Denis Yukhnenko aff001;  Achim Wolf aff001;  Nigel Blackwood aff002;  Seena Fazel aff001
Působiště autorů: Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom aff001;  Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom aff002
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(9)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0222495



We aimed to systematically review recidivism rates in individuals given community sentences internationally. We sought to explore sources of variation between these rates and how reporting practices may limit their comparability across jurisdictions. Finally, we aimed to adapt previously published guidelines on recidivism reporting to include community sentenced populations.


We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, SAGE and Google Scholar for reports and studies of recidivism rates using non-specific and targeted searches for the 20 countries with the largest prison populations worldwide. We identified 28 studies with data from 19 countries. Of the 20 countries with the largest prison populations, only 2 reported recidivism rates for individuals given community sentences.


The most commonly reported recidivism information between countries was for 2-year reconviction, which ranged widely from 14% to 43% in men, and 9% to 35% in women. Explanations for recidivism rate variations between countries include when the follow-up period started and whether technical violations were taken into account.


Recidivism rates in individuals receiving community sentences are typically lower in comparison to those reported in released prisoners, although these two populations differ in terms of their baseline characteristics. Direct comparisons of the recidivism rates in community sentenced cohorts across jurisdictions are currently not possible, but simple changes to existing reporting practices can facilitate these. We propose recommendations to improve reporting practices.

Klíčová slova:

Research and analysis methods – Database and informatics methods – Database searching – Social sciences – Law and legal sciences – Criminal justice system – Prisons – Prisoners – People and places – Geographical locations – Europe – European Union – Denmark – Latvia – North America – United States – Oregon – Oceania – Australia – Population groupings – Age groups – Adults


1. Penal Reform International. Global prison trends 2018. 2018. Available from:

2. McLaughlin M, Pettus-Davis C, Brown D, Veeh C, Renn T. The economic burden of incarceration in the US. Concordance Institute for Advancing Social Justice. 2016. Available from:

3. Ministry of Justice. Proven reoffending statistics quarterly: January 2016 to March 2016. 2018. Available from:

4. Herberman EJ, Bonczar TP. Probation and parole in the United States, 2013, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2013. Available from:

5. National Statistics. Criminal Justice System statistics quarterly: December 2017. 2017. Available from:

6. Drake EK. The monetary benefits and costs of community supervision. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice. 2018;34(1):47–68.

7. Tabar OF, Michele M, Ronco D, Torrente G. Reducing the prison population in Europe: Does community justice work? European Prison Observatory, Rome; 2006.

8. Robinson G, McNeill F, editors. Community Punishment: European Perspectives, Routledge, London; 2015.

9. Nieuwbeerta P, Nagin DS, Blokland A. Assessing the impact of first-time imprisonment on offenders’ subsequent criminal career development: A matched samples comparison. Journal of Quantitative Criminology. 2009;25(3):227–257.

10. Wermink H, Robert A, Nieuwbeerta P, Blokland A. The incapacitation effect of first-time Imprisonment: A matched samples comparison. Journal of Quantitative Criminology. 2013;29(4):579–600.

11. Pearson DAS, McDougall C, Kanaan M, Torgerson DJ, Bowles RA. Evaluation of the Citizenship Evidence-Based Probation Supervision Program Using a Stepped Wedge Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial. Crime & Delinquency, 2016; 62(7): 899–924.

12. Harding DJ, Morenoff JD, Nguyen AP, Bushway SD. Short- and long-term effects of imprisonment on future felony convictions and prison admissions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017;114(42):11103–11108. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1701544114 28973924

13. Nagin DS, Snodgrass GM. The effect of incarceration on re-offending: evidence from a natural experiment in Pennsylvania. Journal of Quantitative Criminology. 2013; 26:601–642.

14. Lowenkamp CT, Holsinger H, Robinson CR, Alexander M. Diminishing or durable treatment effects of STARR? A research note on 24-month re-arrest rates. Journal of Crime and Justice, 2014; 37(2):275–283, doi: 10.1080/0735648X.2012.753849

15. Bales W.D. & Piquero A.R. Assessing the impact of imprisonment on recidivism. J Exp Criminol. 2012; 8:71–101.

16. Evans E, Li L, Urada D, Anglin MD. Comparative Effectiveness of California’s Proposition 36 and Drug Court Programs Before and After Propensity Score Matching. Crime & Delinquency, 2014; 60(6):909–938.

17. Jolliffe D, Hedderman C. Investigating the Impact of Custody on Reoffending Using Propensity Score Matching. Crime & Delinquency, 2015; 61(8):1051–1077.

18. Trevena J, Weatherburn D. Does the first prison sentence reduce the risk of further offending? Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice, 2015; 187. Available from:

19. Wermink H, Blokland A, Nieuwbeerta P, Nagin D, Tollenaar N. Comparing the effects of community service and short-term imprisonment on recidivism: a matched samples approach. Journal of Experimental Criminology. 2010;6(3):325–349.

20. Hyatt JM, Barnes GC. An Experimental Evaluation of the Impact of Intensive Supervision on the Recidivism of High-Risk Probationers. Crime & Delinquency, 2017; 63(1): 3–38.

21. Fazel S, Wolf A systematic review of criminal recidivism rates worldwide: Current difficulties and recommendations for best practice. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(6):e0130390. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0130390 26086423

22. World Prison Brief. Highest to lowest: prison population total. 2018. Available from:

23. National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. (2019). Study quality assessment tools: quality assessment tool for observational cohort and cross-sectional studies. Available from:

24. Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research, Chapman and Hall, London; 1991.

25. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. BMJ, 2009;339:b2535. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2535 19622551

26. Bartels L.The weight of the sword of Damocles: A reconviction analysis of suspended sentences in Tasmania. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology. 2009;42(1):72–100.

27. Flores AW, Holsinger AM, Lowenkamp CT, Cohen TH. Time-free effects in predicting recidivism using both fixed and variable follow-up periods: Do different methods produce different results. Crim Just Beh, 2017;44(1):121–137.

28. Ķipēna K, Zavackis A, Ņikišins J. Sodu izcietušo personu noziedzīgo nodarījumu recidīvs. Jurista Vārds, 2013;35(786):12–17. Latvian.

29. Leonardi F. Le misure alternative alla detenzione tra reinserimento sociale e abbattimento della recidiva. Rassegna penitenziaria e criminological. 2007;2:7–26.

30. Statistics Denmark. Recidivism. 2018. Available from:

31. Graunbøl HM, Kielstrup B, Muiluvuori M-L, Tyni S, Baldursson ES, Gudmundsdottir H, et al. (2010). Retur: en nordisk undersøgelse af recidiv blant klienter i kriminalforsorgen. Kriminalomsorgens utdanningssenter, Oslo; 2010.

32. Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention. (2017). Recidivism. Available from:

33. Ministry of Justice. Prison performance statistics 2016 to 2017, HM Prison and Probation Service. 2017. Available from:

34. Duncan L, Damkat I. Adult and youth reoffending in Northern Ireland (2014/15 Cohort), Analytical Service Group, Department of Justice, Belfast; 2017. Available from:

35. Department of Justice. Adult reconviction in Northern Ireland 2005, Statistics and Research Branch, Department of Justice, Belfast. 2011. Available from:

36. Scottish Government. Reconviction Rates in Scotland: 2014–15 Offender Cohort. 2017. Available from:

37. Ministère de la Justice. Mesurer la récidive: Contribution à la conférence de consensus de prévention de la récidive. 2013. Available from:

38. Albrecht HJ, Jehle JM, eds. National Reconviction Statistics and Studies in Europe = Nationale Rückfallstatistiken und-untersuchungen in Europa, Göttinger Studien zu den Kriminalwissenschaften; 2014. Available from:

39. Central Statistics Office. Probation recidivism 2010 cohort. 2016. Available from:

40. Wartna BSJ, Tollenaar N. Recidive 1997–2003: Ontwikkelingen in het niveau van de strafrechtelijke recidive van jeugdige en volwassen daders, Wetenschappelijk Onderzoeken Documentatiecentrum, Den Haag; 2006.

41. Ontario Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Rates of recidivism (re-conviction) in Ontario. 2017. Aavilable from:

42. Ministère de la Sécurité publique. Projet: Enquête sur la récidive/reprise de la clientèle confiée aux Services correctionnels du Québec. 2015. Available from:

43. Flinchum T, Hevener H, Hall M, Wesoloski J. Correctional program evaluation: offenders placed on probation or released from prison in FY 2013, North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, Raleigh, NC. 2016. Available from:

44. The Council of State Governments. Improving probation and alternatives to incarceration in New York State: Increasing public safety and reducing spending on prisons and jails. 2013. Available from:

45. State of Oregon Criminal Justice Commission. Recidivism. 2018. Available from:

46. Peillard AMM, Correa NM, Chahuán GW, Lacoa JF. La Reincidencia en el Sistema Penitenciario Chileno, Santiago; 2012. Available from:

47. Department of Correctional Services. Recidivism trends in Western Australia with comparison to national trends. 2014. Available from:

48. Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. Re-offending​ statistics for NSW. 2017. Available from:

49. Department of Corrections. Annual report: 1 July 2016–30 June 2017. 2017. Available from:

50. Department of Corrections. Annual report: 1 July 2015–30 June 2016. 2016. Available from:

51. Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. Examining Illinois probationer characteristics and outcomes. 2011. Available from:

52. Federal Statistical Office. Statistique des condamnations pénales 1984–2014. 2015. Available from:

53. Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia. Characteristics of persons registered in penitentiary inspectorates [Характеристика лиц, состоящих на учёте в уголовно-исполнительных инспекциях]. 2018. Available from:

54. Spjeldnes S, Goodkind S. Gender differences and offender reenty: A review of the literature. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation. 2009;48(4):314–335.

55. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. Drug trafficking penalties across the European Union: survey of expert opinion. 2017. Available from:

56. Fazel S, Wolf A, Yukhnenko D. Recidivism reporting checklist. Open Science Framework, 12 2019. doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/QVTFB

Článek vyšel v časopise


2019 Číslo 9

Nejčtenější v tomto čísle

Tomuto tématu se dále věnují…


Zvyšte si kvalifikaci online z pohodlí domova

Antiseptika a prevence ve stomatologii
nový kurz
Autoři: MUDr. Ladislav Korábek, CSc., MBA

Citikolin v neuroprotekci a neuroregeneraci: od výzkumu do klinické praxe nejen očních lékařů
Autoři: MUDr. Petr Výborný, CSc., FEBO

Zánětlivá bolest zad a axiální spondylartritida – Diagnostika a referenční strategie
Autoři: MUDr. Monika Gregová, Ph.D., MUDr. Kristýna Bubová

Diagnostika a léčba deprese pro ambulantní praxi
Autoři: MUDr. Jan Hubeňák, Ph.D

Význam nemocničního alert systému v době SARS-CoV-2
Autoři: doc. MUDr. Helena Lahoda Brodská, Ph.D., prim. MUDr. Václava Adámková

Všechny kurzy