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). |