Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Wellcome Open Research logoLink to Wellcome Open Research
. 2020 Nov 3;4:28. Originally published 2019 Feb 11. [Version 3] doi: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.14970.3

A systematic review of criminal recidivism rates worldwide: 3-year update

Denis Yukhnenko 1, Shivpriya Sridhar 2, Seena Fazel 1,a
PMCID: PMC6743246  PMID: 31544154

Version Changes

Revised. Amendments from Version 2

Figure 2 was amended. In the previous version, the 1-year reconviction rate in Estonia had been plotted incorrectly. We are grateful for our readers who have alerted us of this. The figure now represents the correct data. No other changes were made.

Abstract

Background: Comparing recidivism rates between countries may provide useful information about the relative effectiveness of different criminal justice policies. A previous 2015 review identified criminal recidivism data for 18 countries and found little consistency in outcome definitions and time periods. We aimed to update recidivism rates in prisoners internationally.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review of criminal recidivism rates in prisoners and followed PRISMA guidelines. Using five bibliographic indexes, we carried out non-country-specific and targeted searches for 50 countries with the largest total prison populations. We included reports and studies of released prisoners that reported re-arrest, reconviction and reincarceration rates. Meta-analysis was not possible due to multiple sources of heterogeneity.

Results: We identified criminal recidivism information for 23 countries. Of the 50 countries with the largest prison populations, 10 reported recidivism rates for prisoners. The most commonly reported outcome was the 2-year reconviction rate. We were able to examine reconviction between different time periods for 11 countries and found that most reported small changes in official recidivism rates. Overall, for 2-year follow-up period, reported re-arrest rates were between 26% and 60%, reconviction rates ranged from 20% to 63%, and reimprisonment rates varied from 14 to 45%.

Conclusions: Although some countries have made efforts to improve reporting, recidivism rates are not comparable between countries. Criminal justice agencies should consider using reporting guidelines described here to update their data.

Keywords: prison, prisoners, recidivism, repeat offending, re-arrest, reconviction, reimprisonment, systematic review

Introduction

The number of prisoners and associated expenditure continue to increase worldwide ( MacDonald, 2018; McLaughlin et al., 2016; Penal Reform International, 2018; Sridhar et al., 2018). Released prisoners are at higher risk of criminal recidivism than those serving non-custodial sentences ( Ministry of Justice, 2018) with around one-fifth of all crimes in any year being committed by those released from custody ( Petersilia, 2011). Although most of these recidivism events are non-violent (property crimes, violation of post-release conditions, etc.), released prisoners also have an elevated risk of violent recidivism, which are much more impactful because of high associated physical and psychological morbidity ( Heeks et al., 2018). In the USA, 20% of released prisoners commit a new violent offence in the three years after release ( Alper et al., 2018). In the UK, relative economic and social costs of reoffending in released prisoners are estimated to be double that of individuals receiving community sentences ( Newton et al., 2019). With the increasing recognition of the health burden of violence and crime ( World Health Organisation, 2014), reducing recidivism can make a large contribution to public safety and public health.

Recidivism rates (or rates of repeat offending) are often used as a measure of effectiveness of prison systems and post-release offender management programmes ( Ministry of Justice, 2017). The comparison of recidivism rates between countries and regions may provide useful information about relative effectiveness of different sentencing and rehabilitation policies. However, the operational definitions of recidivism may vary significantly between countries. In a previous systematic review, recidivism rates among prisoners worldwide, published before December 2014, were examined ( Fazel & Wolf, 2015) and differences in outcome definitions, reporting practices and their comparability between countries were outlined. In addition, a proposed reporting guideline to facilitate international comparisons of recidivism statistics was published.

Here, we provide an update on recidivism rates in prisoners worldwide.

Methods

This review builds up on the methods of the previously published study by Fazel & Wolf (2015). We expanded the search to other databases and modified the search strategy. We searched SAGE, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES for the last 10 years (from 01.01.2008 until 23.07.2019) with no language restrictions. The keywords included the names of the 50 countries with largest prison populations in absolute terms ( World Prison Brief, 2018) and a list of commonly reported outcomes ( Figure 1). Google Scholar and Google Web were used for subsequent targeted searches. In addition, we scanned reference lists of included documents. In case of multiple reports identified for the same country, we extracted the most recent data. Studies for geographical regions within the country were included if the national information were unavailable or dated.

Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Search on SAGE, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycArticles, PsycINFO from 01.01.2008 until 23.07.2019, with no language restrictions: prisoners AND (prevalence OR rates) AND (recidivism OR reoffending) AND (USA OR “United States” OR China OR Russia* OR Brazil OR India OR Thailand OR Indonesia OR Turkey OR Iran OR Mexico OR Philippines OR “South Africa” OR Vietnam OR Colombia OR Ethiopia OR Egypt OR Bangladesh OR Peru OR Pakistan OR “United Kingdom” OR Morocco OR Argentina OR Myanmar OR Burma OR Nigeria OR Poland OR France OR Taiwan OR Germany OR “Saudi Arabia” OR Rwanda OR Algeria OR Italy OR Spain OR Cuba OR Venezuela OR Malaysia OR “South Korea” OR Uganda OR Kenya OR Japan OR Iraq OR Uzbekistan OR Chile OR Australia OR Canada OR Salvador OR Ecuador OR Belarus OR Kazakhstan).

We included cohorts where reconviction, re-arrest, and re-imprisonment rates in released prisoners were reported. We excluded studies of recidivism in individuals receiving non-custodial sentences or in heterogeneous samples of offenders without data for a subgroup of released prisoners. If no new data had been identified for a particular country, we reported the rates from the original review ( Fazel & Wolf, 2015). Due to heterogeneity in outcome definition and time periods, meta-analysis was not conducted.

DY and SS conducted the search and independently extracted the data on country, sample selection, definitions of outcomes and rates. Uncertainties were checked with SF. The publications in languages other than English were translated with the assistance of native speakers, who were either employees or students at Oxford University.

Results

We identified 28 publications that reported recidivism rates in released prisoners from 25 countries ( Table 1 and Table 2). One additional publication ( Graunbøl et al., 2010) with data on Finland and Norway was included from the previous review ( Fazel & Wolf, 2015), as no new data were identified for these countries. Of the 50 countries with the largest prison populations, recidivism statistics were identified for 10 countries (Australia, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Italy, South Korea, Spain, USA, UK: England and Wales). The data were published by governmental agencies apart from one published thesis ( Yeoman, 2015). In addition, we identified several publications that reported cross-sectional data on recidivism (i.e. how many current prisoners had previous convictions; from Brunei, Finland, Ghana, India, Russia and Thailand) but these did not provide information on time at risk and were excluded.

Table 1. Description of the extracted data.

Country Publication Description of outcomes Follow-up Notes and exclusions
Australia Australian Government, 2018 Reconviction
Return of an individual to Corrective Services during a follow-up period.
Reimprisonment
Return of an individual to prison.		 2 years Age range is unclear
Austria Statistik Austria, 2018 Reconviction
New criminal conviction during a follow-up period.		 1, 2, 3, 4
years
Canada – Ontario Ontario Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, 2017 Reconviction
Return to a provincial correctional supervision after committing an
offence during the time of follow-up		 2 years Includes individual receiving a
sentence longer than 6 months.
Excludes individuals sentenced to
federal prisons
Canada – Quebec Ministère de la Sécurité publique, 2015 Reconviction
Reimprisonment
The new crime has to happen during a follow-up period and extra
2 years are allowed for finalisation of the sentence.		 2 years Recidivism events resulting from breaches of
parole or probation conditions are excluded
Chile Gendarmería de Chile, 2013 Reconviction
New criminal conviction during a follow-up period.		 2 years
Denmark Statistics Denmark, 2018 Reconviction
3 years after follow-up ends, an individual can be sentenced for an
offence committed during the follow-up period.		 6 months,
1 year, 2
years		 Cohort of people released from
custody aged 20 years old and older.
Estonia Ahven et al., 2018 Re-arrest
Being a suspect of a crime.
Reconviction
New criminal conviction during a follow-up period.		 1, 2, 5 years No precise data provided that would allow for
estimation of the cohorts’ sizes.
Finland * Graunbøl et al., 2010 Reconviction
The offence and conviction both have to happen during a follow-up
period		 2 years
France Ministère de la Justice, 2013 Reconviction
The offence and conviction both have to happen during a follow-up to
be counted as recidivism.		 1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6 years		 Follow-up period starts next
calendar year from the year of initial
conviction. Follow-up may overlap
with time in prison.
Germany Hans-Jörg & Jörg-Martin, 2014 Reconviction
The offence and conviction both have to happen during a follow-up to
be counted as recidivism.		 3 years
Iceland Yeoman, 2015 Reconviction
New criminal conviction during a follow-up period		 2 years Includes prisoners in Vernd (“halfway
house”, type of parole)
Ireland, Republic of Central Statistics Office, 2016 Reconviction
To be counted as a recidivism event, an offence has to occur within a
follow-up period and a conviction has to happen within two years after
the offence.		 3 years
Israel Walk & Berman, 2015 Reimprisonment
Receiving a new prison sentence during a follow-up period.		 1, 2, 3, 4,
5 years
Italy Mastrobuoni & Terlizzese, 2014 Re-arrest
A new arrest during a follow-up period.		 3 years Selected sample. May not be fully
representative.
Latvia Ķipēna et al., 2013 Reconviction
(or initiation of proceedings)
A new criminal charge that did not results in acquittal or other technical
dismissal during a follow-up period.		 29 months
Netherlands Ministerie van Justice en Veiligheid, 2018 Reconviction (or initiation of proceedings)
A new criminal charge that did not results in acquittal or other technical
dismissal during a follow-up period		 1, 2, 3
years
New Zealand Department of Corrections, 2017; Department of Corrections, 2018 Reconviction
The crime and conviction should both happen during a follow-up to be
counted as recidivism.
Reimprisonment
Receiving a new prison sentence during a follow-up period.		 1, 2 years
Norway * Graunbøl et al., 2010 Reconviction
The offence and conviction both have to happen during a follow-up
period		 2 years
Singapore Singapore Prison Service, 2019 Re-arrest
Released individual detained or convicted and imprisoned again for
any new offence during a follow-up period.		 2 years Includes Drug Rehabilitation Centre
inmates. No precise data provided that would
allow for estimation of the cohort’s size.
South Korea Indicator, 2019 Reimprisonment
Receiving a new prison sentence during a follow-up period.		 3 years
Spain
– Catalonia 		Area of Research and Social and Criminological Formation, 2015 Reimprisonment
Receiving a new prison sentence during a follow-up period.		 3.5 years
Sweden Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention, 2018 Reconviction
The new crime has to happen during the follow-up period and extra
3 years are allowed for finalisation of the sentence		 1, 2, 3
years
UK: E&W Ministry of Justice, 2018 Proven reoffending
6 months after observational period ends, an individual can be
sentenced for an offence committed during this period.		 1 year
UK: N. Ireland Department of Justice, 2017 Proven reoffending
6 months after observational period ends, an individual can be
sentenced for an offence committed during this period.		 1 year
UK: Scotland Scottish Government, 2018 Reconviction
New criminal conviction during a follow-up period.		 1 year
USA (federal) Alper et al., 2018 Re-arrest
An arrest should happen during a follow-up period anywhere in the US.		 1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6, 7, 8,
9 years		 The same 2005 federal cohort as
examined in Fazel & Wolf (2015).
Data for longer follow-up periods became
available and the rates were recalculated.
USA (23 states) Gelb & Velázquez, 2018 Reimprisonment
Return to a prison in the same state during a follow-up period.		 1, 2, 3
years		 States included in the analysis: Arizona,
California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana,
Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas,
Utah, Washington, Wisconsin.
USA – N. Carolina Flinchum et al., 2016 Re-arrest
Reconviction
Reimprisonment
To be accounted for, a respective event (new arrest, conviction or
reimprisonment) should happen during a follow-up period on the state
territory.		 1, 2 years
USA – Oregon State of Oregon Criminal Justice Commission, 2018 Re-arrest
Reconviction
Reimprisonment
To be a accounted for, a respective event (new arrest, conviction or
reimprisonment) should happen during a follow-up period on the state
territory.		 1, 2, 3 years Includes released prisoners on
parole and post-release supervision.
Open in a new tab

* Recidivism rates from the original review ( Fazel & Wolf, 2015) were reported since no new data had become available.

Table 2. Reconviction, re-arrest and reimprisonment rates in released prisoners by country and follow-up period length.

Country Year Cohort size Follow-up Re-arrest Reconviction Reimprisonment Publication
Australia 2014–2015 n/a 2 years 53% 45% Australian Government, 2018
Austria 2013 7,185 1 year 15% Statistik Austria, 2018
2 years 26%
3 years 32%
4 years 36%
Canada
– Ontario 		2014–2015 2,610 2 years 35% Ontario Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, 2017
Canada
– Quebec 		2007–2008 9,483 2 years 55% 43% Ministère de la Sécurité publique, 2015
Chile 2010 20,625 2 years 39% Gendarmería de Chile, 2013
Denmark 2013 3,904 6 months 36% Statistics Denmark, 2018
1 year 51%
2 years 63%
Estonia 2013–2014 n/a 1 year 37% 16% Ahven et al., 2018
2 years 59% 35%
2011–2012 n/a 5 years 76% 58%
Finland * 2005 4,507 2 years 36% Graunbøl et al., 2010
France 2004 78,580 1 year 26% Ministère de la Justice, 2013
2 years 40%
3 years 48%
4 years 54%
5 years 58%
6 years 61%
Germany 2007 26,602 3 years 46% Jehle, 2014
Iceland 2009–2011 322 2 years 27% Yeoman, 2015
Ireland,
Republic of 		2010 9,339 3 years 45% Central Statistics Office. 2016
Italy 2001–2009 479
(sample)		 3 years 28%
(24% - 32%)		 Mastrobuoni & Terlizzese, 2014
Israel 2008 6,724 1 year 18% Walk & Berman, 2015
2 years 28%
3 years 34%
4 years 38%
5 years 41%
Latvia 2009 442
(sample)		 29 months 50%
(45% - 55%)		 Ķipēna et al., 2013
Netherlands 2013 31,168 1 year 35% Ministerie van Justice en Veiligheid, 2018
2 years 46%
3 years 51%
New Zealand 2015–2016 n/a 1 year 46% 32% Department of Corrections, 2017
2 years 61% 43% Department of Corrections, 2018
Norway * 2005 8,788 2 years 20% Graunbøl et al., 2010
Singapore 2015 n/a 2 years 24% Singapore Prison Service, 2019
South Korea 2013 22,121 3 years 25% Indicator, 2019
Spain
– Catalonia 		2010 3,414 3.5 years 30% Area of Research and Social and Criminological Formation, 2015
Sweden 2011 7,738 1 year 51% Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention, 2018
2 years 61%
3 years 65%
UK: E&W 2015–2016 61,410 1 year 48% Ministry of Justice, 2018
UK: N.
Ireland 		2014–2015 1,417 1 year 37% Department of Justice, 2017
UK: Scotland 2015–2016 6,295 1 year 43% Scottish Government, 2018
USA (federal) 2005 401,288 1 year 44% Alper et al., 2018
2 years 60%
3 years 68%
4 years 74%
5 years 77%
6 year 80%
7 years 81%
8 years 82%
9 years 83%
USA (23 states) 2012 392,130 1 year 23% Gelb & Velázquez, 2018
2 year 32%
3 year 37%
USA – N. Carolina 2013 13,873 1 year 31% 11% 12% Flinchum et al., 2016
2 years 48% 26% 21%
USA – Oregon 2014 4,357 1 year 40% 23% 7% State of Oregon Criminal Justice Commission, 2018
2 years 51% 36% 14%
3 years 57% 43% 19%
Open in a new tab

* recidivism rates from the original review ( Fazel & Wolf, 2015) were reported since no new data had become available.

All included reports were conducted on general populations except for the studies from Italy (n = 479) and Latvia (n = 442). For Italian and Latvian samples, we estimated 95% confidence intervals, assuming normal distribution (provided in parentheses).

For all reported outcomes, a two-year follow-up period was the most commonly used. As shown in Table 2, the two-year re-arrest rates ranged from 24% (Singapore) to 60% (USA), two-year reconviction rates ranged from 20% (Norway) to 63% (Denmark), and two-year reimprisonment rates ranged from 14% (Oregon, USA) to 45% (Australia) (see Table 3 for two-year reconviction rates from included countries).

Table 3. Two-year reconviction rates in released prisoners.

Country Year Cohort size Reconviction Publication
Australia 2014–2015 n/a 53% Australian Government, 2018
Austria 2013 7,185 26% Statistik Austria, 2018
Canada – Ontario 2014–2015 2,610 35% Ontario Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, 2017
Canada – Quebec 2007–2008 9,483 55% Ministère de la Sécurité publique, 2015
Chile 2010 20,625 39% Gendarmería de Chile, 2013
Denmark 2013 3,904 63% Statistics Denmark, 2018
Estonia 2013–2014 n/a 35% Ahven et al., 2018
Finland * 2005 4,507 36% Graunbøl et al., 2010
France 2004 78,580 40% Ministère de la Justice, 2013
Iceland 2009–2011 322 27% Yeoman, 2015
Netherlands 2013 31,168 46% Ministerie van Justice en Veiligheid, 2018
New Zealand 2014–2015 n/a 60% Department of Corrections, 2018
Norway * 2005 8,788 20% Graunbøl et al., 2010
Sweden 2011 7,738 61% Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention, 2018
USA (federal) 2005 401,288 60% Alper et al., 2018
USA – N. Carolina 2013 13,873 26% Flinchum et al., 2016
USA – Oregon 2014 4,357 36% State of Oregon Criminal Justice Commission, 2018
Open in a new tab

* reconviction rates from the original review ( Fazel & Wolf, 2015) were reported since no new data had become available.

We additionally compared reconviction rates examined in the previous review ( Fazel & Wolf, 2015) with updated information ( Table 4). Such comparisons were possible for 11 countries (Denmark, France, Germany, Iceland, Singapore, Republic of Ireland, Sweden, Singapore, UK: England and Wales, UK: Northern Ireland, UK: Scotland).

Table 4. The comparison of the reconviction rates in released prisoners reported in the previous review ( Fazel & Wolf, 2015) with those reported in the present review.

Country Previously
reported rate
(year)		 New rate
(year)		 Notes
1-year reconviction
UK: E&W 46% (2000)
45% (2012/2013)		 48%
(2015/2016)		 Change in data source and cohort composition in 2015.
Rates for 2012/2013 were recalculated as 49% in the newly published
statistics.
Significant difference between recalculated 2012/2013 rates and 2015/2016
rates (χ2 = 15.6, df = 1, p = 0.0001).
UK: N. Ireland 25% (2005) 37%
(2014/2015)		 Changes in the outcome definition.
1- and 2-year reconviction rates were used as outcomes in the older report.
In the newer report, ‘proven reconviction’ is used, which is 1-year reconviction
rate with an extra 6-month period to allow for the imposition of a court
conviction. The management of individuals’ data and the agencies responsible
for it have also changed (outlined in the reports’ methodology sections).
UK: Scotland 46% (2009/2010) 43%
(2015/2016)		 Rates for 2009/2010 were recalculated from 45.7% in the old publication to
46.3% in the newly published statistics.
Significant difference between recalculated 2009/2010 rates and 2015/2016
rates (χ2 = 11.4, df = 1, p = 0.0007).
2-year reconviction
Denmark 29% (2005) 63% (2013) Changes in reporting practices and outcome operationalisation.
The online recidivism calculator was introduced by Statistics Denmark, which
allows to choose required composition of the cohort of interest. The new
sample excludes individuals younger than 20 years old. The new outcome
now includes an extra 1-year period to allow for the imposition of a court
conviction (no such period was used in the calculation of the previous
reconviction rate).
Sweden 43% (2005) 61% (2011) Changes in the outcome operationalisation.
The new outcome now includes an extra 3-year period to allow for the
imposition of a court conviction (no such period was used in the calculation of
the previous reconviction rate).
Iceland 27% (2005) 27%
(2009/2011)		 No significant difference (χ2 = 0, df = 1, p = 0.9984).
Netherlands 48% (2007) 46% (2013) Rates for 2007 were recalculated as 49% in the newly published statistics.
Significant difference between 2007 recalculated rates and 2013 rates (χ2
=94.2, df = 1, p = 0.0001).
Singapore 27% (2011) 26% (2015) No exact information about sample size available.
3-year reconviction
Germany 48% (2004) 46% (2007) Sample sizes estimation were taken from Hohmann-Fricke (2014).
Significant difference (χ2 = 18.4, df = 1, p = 0.0001).
Ireland,
Republic of 		51% (2008) 45% (2010) Significant difference (χ2 = 48.1, df = 1, p = 0.0001).
Larger number of prisoners in the newer cohort.
5-year reconviction
France 59% (2002) 58% (2004) No significant difference (χ2 = 2.6, df = 1, p = 0.1042).
Open in a new tab

Discussion

In this systematic review, we have presented worldwide prisoner recidivism rates and found that only 10 out of 50 countries with the largest prison populations reported recidivism statistics for cohorts of released prisoners. This finding suggests the lack of systematic and open approach towards recidivism research in many countries, despite its importance for public safety and health. In addition, Although some jurisdictions have made efforts to increase comparability of recidivism statistics (e.g., Northern Ireland implemented the same reconviction criteria as England and Wales), overall recidivism rates remain difficult to compare between countries because of significant variations in outcome definitions and reporting practices. In particular, when reporting reconviction rates, certain jurisdictions with lower rates (e.g Norway and North Carolina) operationalise recidivism as both an offence and conviction that have to occur during a specified follow-up period. This definition of recidivism is thus contingent on the length of court proceedings, and reconviction rates are typically lower when compared to jurisdictions that allow additional time after the follow-up period for court proceedings (and convictions) to be finalised (see Figure 2). For two countries that were included in the original 2015 review, no new published data was identified (Finland and Norway).

Figure 2. One- and two-year reconviction rates in released prisoners in different jurisdictions by usage of additional time after the follow-up period for finalization of court proceedings.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

  Note: *the Netherlands used the initiation of court proceedings that did not result in acquittal or technical dismissal during the follow-up as an outcome.

Overall, for the countries with updated data available, any changes in recidivism rates over time were small where there were no obvious revisions to reporting practices. This contrasts with reductions in self-reported crime in some surveys in high-income countries such as England and Wales ( Office for National Statistics, 2018). Changes in rates were observed in those countries that changed the operationalisation of the outcome or the ways they collected and reported data. One exception to this is the Republic of Ireland, where the reconviction rate decreased by 6% in 3 years in the absence of any obvious changes in reporting practices. During this period, the number of people in the released prisoners’ cohort nearly doubled from 5,489 in 2008 ( Central Statistics Office, 2013) to 9,339 in 2010 ( Central Statistics Office, 2016).

We conclude that international comparisons between countries remain problematic, and the use of a checklist (Appendix 1; Fazel et al., 2019a) may facilitate more consistent and transparent reporting of recidivism rates.

Data availability

Appendix 1, containing the recidivism reporting checklist, is available from OSF.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/QVTFB ( Fazel et al., 2019a).

License: CC0 1.0 Universal.

Reporting guidelines

A completed PRISMA checklist is available on OSF. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/7SZJC ( Yukhnenko et al., 2019b)

Funding Statement

SF is funded by the Wellcome Trust (grant number 202836).

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

[version 3; peer review: 3 approved]

References

  1. Ahven A, Roots A, Sööt ML: Retsidiivsus Eestis 2017.2018. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  2. Alper M, Durose MR, Markman J: 2018 update on prisoner recidivism: a 9-year follow-up period (2005-2014).2018. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  3. Area of Research and Social and Criminological Formation: Executive report 2014.2015. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  4. Australian Government: Report on Government Services 2018: Part C.2018. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  5. Central Statistics Office: Prison Recidivism: 2008 Cohort. Dublin: Central Statistics Office, Ireland.2013. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  6. Central Statistics Office: Prison recidivism 2010 cohort.2016. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  7. Department of Corrections: Annual report: 1 July 2016 - 30 June 2017.2017. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  8. Department of Corrections: Annual report: 1 July 2017 - 30 June 2018.2018. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  9. Department of Justice: Research and Statistical bulletin 29-2017. Adult and Youth Reoffending in Northern Ireland 2014-15.2017. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  10. Fazel S, Wolf A, Yukhnenko D: Recidivism reporting checklist.2019a. 10.17605/OSF.IO/QVTFB [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Fazel S, Wolf A: A Systematic Review of Criminal Recidivism Rates Worldwide: Current Difficulties and Recommendations for Best Practice. PLoS One. 2015;10(6):e0130390. 10.1371/journal.pone.0130390 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Flinchum T, Hevener H, Hall M, et al. : Correctional program evaluation: offenders placed on probation or released from prison in FY 2013.Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission.2016. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  13. Gelb A, Velázquez T: The changing state of recidivism: fewer people going back to prison.2018. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  14. Gendarmería de Chile: La reincidencia: un desafío para la gestión del Sistema penitenciario chileno y las políticas públicas [in Spanish].2013. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  15. Graunbøl HM, Kielstrup B, Muiluvuori ML, et al. : Retur: en nordisk undersøgelse af recidiv blant klienter i kriminalforsorgen [in Danish, Norwegian, Swedish]. Oslo, Norway: Kriminalomsorgens utdanningssenter.2010. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  16. Hans-Jörg A, Jörg-Martin J: National reconviction statistics and studies in Europe. Göttingen, Germany: Universitätsverlag Göttingen.2014. 10.17875/gup2014-791 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Heeks M, Reed S, Tafsiri M, et al. : The economic and social costs of crime.2018. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  18. Hohmann-Fricke S: Auswahl, Prüfung und Aufbereitung der Daten der deutsche Rückfalluntersuchung [in German]. Albrecht HJ, Jehle JM, (Ed). National reconviction statistics and studies in Europe.Göttingen, Germany: Universitätsverlag Göttingen.2014:159–181. [Google Scholar]
  19. Indicator: Recidivism rate [in Korean].2019. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  20. Jehle JM: Approach, structure and outcome of the German reconviction study. Albrecht HJ, Jehle JM, (Ed). National reconviction statistics and studies in Europe.Göttingen, Germany: Universitätsverlag Göttingen.2014:159–181. 10.17875/gup2014-791 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Ķipēna K, Zavackis A, Ņikišins J: Sodu izcietušo personu noziedzīgo nodarījumu recidīvs. Jurista Vārds. 2013;35(786):12–17. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  22. MacDonald M: Overcrowding and its impact on prison conditions and health. Int J Prison Health. 2018;14(2):65–68. 10.1108/IJPH-04-2018-0014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Mastrobuoni G, Terlizzese D: Rehabilitation and recidivism: evidence from an Open Prison.2014. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  24. McLaughlin M, Pettus-Davis C, Brown D, et al. : The economic burden of incarceration in the US.2016. Reference Source
  25. Ministère de la Justice: Mesurer la récidive: Contribution à la conférence de consensus de prévention de la récidive [in French].2013. Reference Source
  26. Ministère de la Sécurité publique: Projet: Enquête sur la récidive/reprise de la clientèle confiée aux Services correctionnels du Québec [in French].2015. Reference Source
  27. Ministerie van Justice en Veiligheid: Recidivemonitor. Repris [in Dutch].2018. Reference Source
  28. Ministry of Justice: Prison performance statistics 2016 to 2017.2017. Reference Source
  29. Ministry of Justice: Proven reoffending statistics quarterly: January 2016 to March 2016.2018. Reference Source
  30. Newton A, May X, Eames S, et al. : Economic and social costs of reoffending: analytical report.2019. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  31. Office for National Statistics: Crime in England and Wales: year ending March 2018.2018. Reference Source
  32. Ontario Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services: Rates of recidivism (re-conviction) in Ontario.2017. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  33. Penal Reform International: Global prison trends 2018.2018. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  34. Petersilia J: Beyond the prison bubble. Wilson Quarterly. 2011;35:50–55. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  35. Scottish Government: Reconviction rates in Scotland: 2015-16 Offender Cohort.2018. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  36. Singapore Prison Service: Recidivism rate.2019. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  37. Sridhar S, Cornish R, Fazel S: The Costs of Healthcare in Prison and Custody: Systematic Review of Current Estimates and Proposed Guidelines for Future Reporting. Front Psychiatry. 2018;9:716. 10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00716 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. State of Oregon Criminal Justice Commission: Recidivism.2018. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  39. Statistics Denmark: Recidivism.2018. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  40. Statistik Austria: Kriminalität [in German].2018. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  41. Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention: Recidivism.2018. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  42. Walk D, Berman E: The Recidivism of Israeli prisoners. Ramla, Israel: Israel Prison Service.2015. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  43. World Health Organisation: Global status report on violence prevention 2014. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO Press.2014. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  44. World Prison Brief: Highest to lowest: prison population total.2018. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  45. Yeoman KÖ: Recidivism among Icelandic prison inmates released in 2009-2011 (thesis, Reykjavik University).2015. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  46. Yukhnenko D, Sridhar S, Fazel S, et al. : PRISMA checklist for “A systematic review of criminal recidivism rates worldwide: 3-year update” (Yukhnenko, Sridhar, Fazel).2019b. 10.17605/OSF.IO/7SZJC [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Wellcome Open Res. 2021 Feb 1. doi: 10.21956/wellcomeopenres.17992.r41237

Reviewer response for version 3

Karen M Abram 2, Nanzi Zheng 1

The authors' have thoroughly addressed all comments. Congratulations on this important study.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Not applicable

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

No source data required

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

NA

We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Wellcome Open Res. 2020 Nov 10. doi: 10.21956/wellcomeopenres.17992.r41238

Reviewer response for version 3

Anne G Crocker 1,2, Marichelle Leclair 3

We have no additional comments. The authors have satisfactorily addressed the issues we had raised.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

NA

We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Wellcome Open Res. 2019 Nov 19. doi: 10.21956/wellcomeopenres.16976.r37037

Reviewer response for version 2

Anne G Crocker 1,2, Marichelle Leclair 3

We are OK with the changes made by the authors and thank them for addressing each point diligently.  

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

NA

We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Wellcome Open Res. 2019 Sep 11. doi: 10.21956/wellcomeopenres.16329.r34843

Reviewer response for version 1

Katherine M Auty 1

This systematic review examines the criminal recidivism rates of prisoners internationally, with the aspiration that ‘the comparison of recidivism rates between countries and regions may provide useful information about relative effectiveness of different sentencing and rehabilitation policies’ (p.3). This is indeed an important and timely research endeavour given that the Ministry of Justice in England and Wales recently published the responses to a consultation on proposed changes to the proven reoffending rates it produces (see; Ministry of Justice, 2016 1 and 2017 2) to ‘align the existing reoffending measure with those measures necessary for assessing progress against the rehabilitation reforms’ (Ministry of Justice, 2016 1, p.3). Furthermore, the production and use of data, such as recidivism rates that is often held by government departments is a major issue of democratic governance (Parsons, 2002 3, p.145). This review updates findings from a previous one (Fazel & Wolf, 2015 4), and expands the searches conducted from 20 to 50 countries with the largest prison populations.

Whilst recidivism rates do have the potential to be used as a standardised measure of prison performance and could be used to compare prisons nationally (and internationally), any choice of

outcome should reflect the purpose of prisons, and this is likely to vary internationally. There are, however, several drawbacks to using recidivism rates in this context;

  • Recidivism rates underestimate the true amount (and cost) of crime in society, as a significant (but unknown) amount of crime is unreported/unsolved.

  • Recidivism rates do not tell us anything about whether the new offence committed was more or less serious than the previous one. Therefore, they are a fairly crude measure of effectiveness.

  • Recidivism rates only capture instances of failure and do not take into account successes.

  • Recidivism rates do not reflect what we know about desistance theory (i.e. pathways out of crime often involve sidesteps and missteps, see McNeill & Schinkel, 2016 5).

  • Recidivism rates often do not tell us if the person was returned to custody, and are therefore limited in terms of calculating the cost of crime to society.

Comparisons between prison regimes internationally are fraught with difficulties; especially given recent changes in prison populations, policy and reporting practices. Additionally, what constitutes a crime can vary from one country to the next.

Notwithstanding any concerns as to the appropriateness of these comparisons, one of the main findings of this updated review is that researchers are still some way off being able to perform these comparisons; only 10 of the 50 countries reported recidivism rates for prisoners, and due to the heterogeneity in the type of figures produced it was not possible for the authors to produce a meta-analysis. A recidivism reporting checklist is proposed as a means of standardising how countries produce this statistical information and its adoption should be recommended.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

Prisons research, Quantitative methodologies, Personality disorder, Evaluation.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

References

  • 1. : Response to consultation on changes to proven reoffending statistics: England and Wales. London: Ministry of Justice.2016; Reference source
  • 2. : How the measure of proven reoffending has changed and the effect of these changes. London: Ministry of Justice.2017; Reference source
  • 3. : Analytical Frameworks for Policy and Project Evaluation: Contextualising Welfare Economics, Public Choice and Management Approaches. Project and Policy Evaluation in Transport.2002;144-180 Reference source
  • 4. : A Systematic Review of Criminal Recidivism Rates Worldwide: Current Difficulties and Recommendations for Best Practice. PLoS One.2015;10(6) : 10.1371/journal.pone.0130390 e0130390 10.1371/journal.pone.0130390 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. : Prisons and desistance. Handbook on Prisons.2016;607-621 Reference source
Wellcome Open Res. 2019 Oct 7.
Denis Yukhnenko 1

Reviewer 3

1) Recidivism rates underestimate the true amount (and cost) of crime in society, as a significant (but unknown) amount of crime is unreported/unsolved.

Our response: We agree with this point, although it is not directly to the paper. We have explained the purpose of the paper in the introduction, which does not aim to estimate the amount and cost of all crime in society.

2) Recidivism rates do not tell us anything about whether the new offence committed was more or less serious than the previous one. Therefore, they are a fairly crude measure of effectiveness.

Our response: We agree. Some jurisdictions included in our review reported separate recidivism rates for different types of offences that provide some indication of recidivism severity. We have also included the recommendation to provide more crime categories in our reporting checklist.

3) Recidivism rates only capture instances of failure and do not take into account successes.

Our response: This is a valid point. Success measures could be especially helpful when reporting the outcomes of rehabilitation programmes, but beyond the scope of this paper.

4) Recidivism rates do not reflect what we know about desistance theory (i.e. pathways out of crime often involve sidesteps and missteps, see McNeill & Schinkel, 2016).

Our response: We agree, but again, this is outside the scope of this paper.  

5) Recidivism rates often do not tell us if the person was returned to custody, and are therefore limited in terms of calculating the cost of crime to society.'

Our response: A helpful point. Using different recidivism outcomes (reconviction, reincarceration, re-arrest) and different sources of information (official crime and healthcare statistics, surveys) can address this limitation. We have revised our reporting checklist so that it includes information on reincarceration and re-arrest (in addition to reconviction), if possible.

Wellcome Open Res. 2019 Jun 25. doi: 10.21956/wellcomeopenres.16329.r35606

Reviewer response for version 1

Anne G Crocker 1,2, Marichelle Leclair 3

This Research Note presents an update of a systematic review of worldwide recidivism rates published 3-years ago (Fazel & Wolf, 2015). Although the manuscript does not significantly add to the literature, as a research note it provides up-to-date results. In 2015, the authors concluded that recidivism data was not valid for international comparisons. This update draws the same conclusions. Overall, this systematic review is methodologically sound and highlights the inherent difficulties in adopting a comparative approach to recidivism. However, the manuscript would benefit from clarifying the results section as well as expanding the rationale.

Introduction:

  1. It would be helpful to expand on the rationale for the review. In the introduction, the authors argue that “recently released prisoners often constitute a high-risk group that commit the majority of violent crimes” and then emphasize the public health burden of violent crime. However, much of the literature shows that recidivism events among recently released prisoners commonly involve justice administration offences (e.g., failure to comply with conditions of release). This may weaken the ‘public health burden’ argument and should be the subject of discussion in the manuscript.

 

Methods:

  1. A justification for the selection of the bibliographic database (MEDLINE) should be provided, given that MEDLINE is generally used for biomedical research.

  2. The abstract states that “three bibliographic indexes” were used, but this is not mentioned nor expanded upon in the text.

  3. “If no new data had been identified for a particular country, we reported the rates from the original review”: in what percentage of cases did this occur? How many new or updated estimates were included?

  4. It is unclear from the author list who “PS” is.

  5. As per the PRISMA guidelines, it would be helpful to describe the method of data extraction (e.g., independently, in duplicate).  

  6. According to the reference list, several reports were available in foreign languages only. How were they translated?

Results:

  1. We agree with Reviewer 1 that results are difficult to follow along and that an effort should be made to match up the text with the figures and tables.

  2. The rationale for Table 3 is unclear, given that it repeats information that is also provided in Table 2. Perhaps editing Table 2 or synthesizing the 2-year reconviction rates in the text would be more appropriate.

  3. Table 4 often mentions that there was a change in reporting practices, which often results in considerable changes in rates (e.g., Denmark: 29% (2005), 63% (2013)). More details should be provided regarding the nature of the change in reporting practices.

  4. It would be helpful to clarify if each study examines a population or a sample (for example, in the Notes section of Table 1).

  5. If a study examines a sample rather than a population, it would be helpful to provide a confidence interval, if available.

Discussion:

  • Given that it is not the objective of the current manuscript, it may be premature to extrapolate on the reasons for a change in rates in the Republic of Ireland.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

Forensic mental health, violence, criminality, psychology

We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however we have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Wellcome Open Res. 2019 Oct 7.
Denis Yukhnenko 1

Reviewer 2

Introduction:

1) It would be helpful to expand on the rationale for the review. In the introduction, the authors argue that “recently released prisoners often constitute a high-risk group that commit the majority of violent crimes” and then emphasize the public health burden of violent crime. However, much of the literature shows that recidivism events among recently released prisoners commonly involve justice administration offences (e.g., failure to comply with conditions of release). This may weaken the ‘public health burden’ argument and should be the subject of discussion in the manuscript.

Our response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have strengthened our argument by providing information about economic and social costs of reoffending in released prisoners when compared to individuals receiving non-custodial sentences. We additionally outlined the importance of taking the violent recidivism into account, even if the rates are low relative to other types of recidivism, due to high associated emotional costs [rows 2-15]. Also, we highlighted the fact that most recidivism events are non-violent transgressions and provided information on the exact percentage of violent crimes using the US data [rows 10-11]. (the numbering of rows refers to the revised manuscript's .docx file)

Rows 2-15 ( old text is underlined): The number of prisoners and associated expenditure continue to increase worldwide (MacDonald, 2018; McLaughlin et al., 2016; Penal Reform International, 2018; Sridhar et al., 2018). Released prisoners are at higher risk of criminal recidivism than those serving non-custodial sentences (Ministry of Justice, 2018) with around one-fifth of all crimes in any year being committed by those released from custody (Petersilia, 2011). Although most of these recidivism events are non-violent (property crimes, violation of post-release conditions, etc.), released prisoners also have an elevated risk of violent recidivism, which are much more impactful because of high associated physical and psychological morbidity (Heeks et al., 2018). In the USA, 20% of released prisoners commit a new violent offence in the three years after release (Alper et al., 2018). In the UK, relative economic and social costs of reoffending in released prisoners are estimated to be double that of individuals receiving community sentences (Newton et al., 2019). With the increasing recognition of the health burden of violence and crime (World Health Organisation, 2014), reducing recidivism can make a large contribution to public safety and public health.

Deleted this sentence: Recently released prisoners often constitute a high-risk group that commit the majority of violent crimes (Andersen & Skardhamar, 2014; Ministry of Justice, 2018) with around one-fifth of all crimes in any year being committed by those released from custody (Petersilia, 2011).

Methods:

1) A justification for the selection of the bibliographic database (MEDLINE) should be provided, given that MEDLINE is generally used for biomedical research.  

Our response: This is a very useful comment. Although we followed the choice of database in our previous review, after consideration of this comment, we decided to add several other databases, including SAGE, since many criminological journals are indexed there, and redo the search. We also revised our search strategy to account for this [Figure 1, rows 31-34].

Rows 31 - 34: ‘This review builds up on the methods of the previously published study by Fazel & Wolf (2015). We expanded the search to other databases and modified search strategy. We searched SAGE, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES for the last 10 years (from 01.01.2008 until 23.07.2019) with no language restrictions.’

2) The abstract states that “three bibliographic indexes” were used, but this is not mentioned nor expanded upon in the text.     

Our response: Thank you for highlighting this. We have added details on the search strategy and revised the list of indexes [see above]. The abstract now states:

Old text is underlined): ‘ Using five bibliographic indexes, we carried out non-country-specific and targeted searches for 50 countries with the largest total prison populations.’ 

3) “If no new data had been identified for a particular country, we reported the rates from the original review”: in what percentage of cases did this occur? How many new or updated estimates were included? 

Our response: This was the case for only two countries. We have clarified this in the results section.

Rows 67 - 69: ‘One additional publication (Graunbøl et al., 2010) with data on Finland and Norway was included from the previous review (Fazel & Wolf, 2015), as no new data were identified for these countries.’

4) It is unclear from the author list who “PS” is.

Our response: Added.

5) As per the PRISMA guidelines, it would be helpful to describe the method of data extraction (e.g., independently, in duplicate). 

Our response: The data was instructed independently by two researchers. We added the clarification in the methods section.

Rows 60 - 61 ( old text is underlined): ‘ DY and SS conducted the search and independently extracted the data on country, sample selection, definitions of outcomes and rates.’

6) According to the reference list, several reports were available in foreign languages only. How were they translated?

Our response: They were translated by the native speakers who were either students or employees of Oxford University. We clarified this in the methods section.

Rows 61 - 63 : ‘The publications in languages other than English were translated with the assistance of native speakers, who were either employees or students at Oxford University.’

    

Results:

1) We agree with Reviewer 1 that results are difficult to follow along and that an effort should be made to match up the text with the figures and tables.

Our response: Thank you for highlighting this. We have gone through the text and tables carefully to ensure consistency and increase clarity.

2) The rationale for Table 3 is unclear, given that it repeats information that is also provided in Table 2. Perhaps editing Table 2 or synthesizing the 2-year reconviction rates in the text would be more appropriate.

Our response: Thank you for the suggestion. We wanted to summarise 2-year reconviction rates as it is the most commonly reported outcome, and a separate table is more informative to the reader visually. Also, it follows the approach from the original review, which makes the findings more easily comparable.

3) Table 4 often mentions that there was a change in reporting practices, which often results in considerable changes in rates (e.g., Denmark: 29% (2005), 63% (2013)). More details should be provided regarding the nature of the change in reporting practices.  

Our response: We have added brief descriptions of changes in reporting practices to Table 4.

4) It would be helpful to clarify if each study examines a population or a sample (for example, in the Notes section of Table 1). If a study examines a sample rather than a population, it would be helpful to provide a confidence interval, if available.

Our response: Thank you for pointing this out. Only two studies of the included studies examine samples (from Latvia and Italy). We added this information to the Table 1 and provided the information about 95% confidence intervals.

Table 2: ‘All included reports were conducted on general populations except for the studies from Italy (n = 479) and Latvia (n = 442). For Italian and Latvian samples, we estimated 95% confidence intervals, assuming normal distributions (provided in parentheses).’

    

Discussion:

1) Given that it is not the objective of the current manuscript, it may be premature to extrapolate on the reasons for a change in rates in the Republic of Ireland.

Our response: We agree that this is not the main aim of the review. We have shortened this part of the discussion.

Rows 127-133: ‘One exception to this is the Republic of Ireland, where the reconviction rate has decreased by 6% in 3 years in the absence of any obvious changes in reporting practices. At the same time, the number of people in the released prisoners’ cohort nearly doubled from 5,489 in 2008 (Central Statistics Office, 2013) to 9,339 in 2010 (Central Statistics Office, 2016).’

Wellcome Open Res. 2019 Mar 6. doi: 10.21956/wellcomeopenres.16329.r34842

Reviewer response for version 1

Karen M Abram 1, Nanzi Zheng 2

This Research Note updates a 2015 systematic review (same senior author) of criminal recidivism rates across countries, including rates of reconviction, re-arrest, and reimprisonment. This is an interesting and important area. The review was carefully conducted, although the findings are modest. As in 2015, the authors conclude that a meta-analysis was not possible. Because recidivism rates are not reported in a comparable fashion across enough countries, they were unable to make many meaningful comparisons or draw conclusions about the association between criminal justice practices and criminal recidivism. The authors provided a summary of the range of recidivism rates for studies reporting 2 year follow-up period (unadjusted). A key message underscores the importance of comparable reporting across countries, and the authors advocate the use of a report checklist to accomplish this. 

It would be very helpful if the authors made it easier to match up the text with the figures and tables. It was quite difficult to follow along, especially in the following areas:

  1. The authors state: “We were able to examine recidivism over different time periods for 11 countries”. The results section of the manuscript never refers to these 11 countries. Table 3 refers to 11 countries if one thinks to remove those with asterisks (those included in the original review) but this table only refers to two-year reconviction rates – not the more generally stated recidivism rates. Table 4 identifies a different 11 studies, but this table compares reconviction rates for studies that had updated data from the 2015 review, and these findings are barely referenced in the results section. In sum, it would be helpful to identify the 11 countries and how they were selected.

  2. In the first line of the results section, the authors stated that they identified 27 publications (also reported in Figure 1) that reported recidivism rates for 23 countries; they refer the reader to Tables 1 and 2. However, Tables 1 and 2 list 29 “studies” (Table 1) or “Sources” (Table 2) by my count, for 23 countries.

  3. The following sentence is highlighted in both the abstract and manuscript: “Of the 50 countries with the largest prison populations, 10 reported recidivism rates for prisoners.” However, none of the figures or tables clearly depicts the list of 10 countries. Perhaps the authors could clarify the significance of the statement and identify the countries?

  4. When reporting the key findings perhaps the authors could provide more help, such as:  “As shown in Table (?), the 2-year re-arrest rates ranged from 26% (list country) to 60% (list country), two-year reconviction rates ranged from 20% (list country) to 63% (list country), and two-year reimprisonment rates ranged from 14% (list country) to 43% (list country).

  5. Small item: The authors state that “DY and PS” conducted the search. It is unclear who PS is in the list of authors.

  6. Small item: In Table 1: Austria ( Statistik Austria, 2018): “ Reconviction: The conviction should happen during a follow-up period. ”The use of “should” is confusing.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Not applicable

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

No source data required

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

1. Interface between criminal justice and mental health systems.  Needs and outcomes of offenders.

We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however we have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Wellcome Open Res. 2019 Oct 7.
Denis Yukhnenko 1

Reviewer 1

1) The authors state: “We were able to examine recidivism over different time periods for 11 countries”. The results section of the manuscript never refers to these 11 countries. Table 3 refers to 11 countries if one thinks to remove those with asterisks (those included in the original review) but this table only refers to two-year reconviction rates – not the more generally stated recidivism rates. Table 4 identifies a different 11 studies, but this table compares reconviction rates for studies that had updated data from the 2015 review, and these findings are barely referenced in the results section. In sum, it would be helpful to identify the 11 countries and how they were selected.

Our response: We agree that this needs clarification – these 11 countries are those where we are able to compare recidivism rates between the original review and the updated one.

The quoted line refers to the Table 4. We made changes to the abstract and the results section [rows 103-105] to clarify this.  (the numbering of rows refers to the revised manuscript .docx file)

Abstract (old text is underlined): ‘ We were able to examine reconviction over different time periods for 11 countries and found that most reported small changes in official recidivism rates.’

Rows 103-105: ‘Such comparisons were possible for 11 countries (Denmark, France, Germany, Iceland, Singapore, Republic of Ireland, Sweden, Singapore, UK: England and Wales, UK: Northern Ireland, UK: Scotland).’

2) In the first line of the results section, the authors stated that they identified 27 publications (also reported in Figure 1) that reported recidivism rates for 23 countries; they refer the reader to Tables 1 and 2. However, Tables 1 and 2 list 29 “studies” (Table 1) or “Sources” (Table 2) by my count, for 23 countries.

Our response: Thank you for highlighting this. We agree that this is not entirely clear. We identified 28 new studies, but included one other one from the previous review (as no new data were identified), so this makes the total 29 publications. These 29 publications report on 25 countries (which is slightly different now as we have treated parts of the UK as separate countries) [rows 66-69]. In addition, we have named all the columns with references to ‘Publication’ for the sake of consistency.

Rows 66-69 (old text is underlined): ‘ We identified 28 publications that reported recidivism rates in released prisoners from 25 countries (Table 1 and Table 2). One additional publication with data on Finland and Norway was included from the previous review (Fazel & Wolf, 2015), as no new data were identified for these countries.’

3) The following sentence is highlighted in both the abstract and manuscript: “Of the 50 countries with the largest prison populations, 10 reported recidivism rates for prisoners.” However, none of the figures or tables clearly depicts the list of 10 countries. Perhaps the authors could clarify the significance of the statement and identify the countries?

Our response: A helpful comment. We have now listed these countries in the results section [rows 69-71]. In addition, we have noted the limited availability of data for these particular 10 countries in the discussion [112-116].

Rows 69 - 71 (old text is underlined): Of the 50 countries with the largest prison populations, recidivism statistics were identified for 10 countries (Australia, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Italy, South Korea, Spain, USA, UK: England and Wales).

Rows 112 - 116 (old text is underlined): In this systematic review, we have reported prisoner recidivism rates around the world and found that only 10 out of 50 countries with the largest prison populations reported recidivism statistics for cohorts of released prisoners. This finding suggests the lack of systematic and open approach towards recidivism research in many countries, despite the apparent need for that. 

4) When reporting the key findings perhaps the authors could provide more help, such as:  “As shown in Table (?), the 2-year re-arrest rates ranged from 26% (list country) to 60% (list country), two-year reconviction rates ranged from 20% (list country) to 63% (list country), and two-year reimprisonment rates ranged from 14% (list country) to 43% (list country).

Our response: Thank you for your suggestion with which we entirely agree and have revised the text accordingly.

Rows 91 - 95 (old text is underlined): ‘As shown in Table 2, the two-year re-arrest rates ranged from 24% (Singapore) to 60% (USA), two-year reconviction rates ranged from 20% (Norway) to 63% (Denmark), and two-year reimprisonment rates ranged from 14% (Oregon, USA) to 45% (Australia) (see Table 3 for 2-year rates from included countries).’

5) Small item: The authors state that “DY and PS” conducted the search. It is unclear who PS is in the list of authors.

Our response: Thank you for pointing this out. Corrected.

6) Small item: In Table 1: Austria ( Statistik Austria, 2018): “ Reconviction: The conviction should happen during a follow-up period. ”The use of “should” is confusing.

Our response: A helpful comment. We have rephrased this.

Table 1: ‘New criminal conviction during a follow-up period’

Articles from Wellcome Open Research are provided here courtesy of The Wellcome Trust

RESOURCES