1. The Effects of Custodial vs
The Effects of Custodial vs. Non-Custodial Sentences on Re-Offending A Systematic Review of the State of Knowledge
The Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group by
Patrice Villettaz, Martin Killias and Isabel Zoder (2006)
Presented by: Emogene Grundvig

2. Objectives
Contribute to the evaluation of prevention of crime and treatment for offenders
To examine the evidence about the effects of custodial sanctions (imprisonment) and non-custodial sanctions (community or alternative) on recidivism (re-offending) rates
For the purpose of this review: Custodial sanctions are defined as any sanction where offenders have a deprivation of their freedom of movement—confined to closed residential setting that is not their home. Non-custodial sanctions are a variety of methods, but do not include any deprivation of liberty of movement
Objective 2: Thus, to determine the rate of re-offending after a non-custodial sanction versus a custodial sanction is imposed on an offender
Objective 3: Jail, Prison, Boot-camp, Shock incarceration VS Confinement

3. Selection Criteria Eligibility Criteria:
Controlled randomized trial, natural experiment, matched pair design, any non-experimental design with four or more control variables
Types of Offenders: Due to the limited number of randomized studies both juveniles and adults are included. All types of offenders are included
Specific Criteria to complete Meta-Analysis:
All studies had to include at least two distinct groups: a custodial sanction group and a non-custodial sanction group;
The sanctions to be compared were imposed following a conviction;
There was at least one outcome measure of recidivism (new arrests, reconvictions, re-incarceration or self-report data for example);
The study was completed after 1960 and prior to 2003.
No restriction about type of publication, geographical area, language, type of delinquency, age, or gender
Use of scale developed by Sherman et al. (1997) for reasonably valid conclusions—level 4 and beyond for higher methodological standards

4. Search Procedure Search Strategy:
Published and unpublished studies indentified through a variety of sources: Abstracts, bibliographies, internet, library catalogues and contact with experts in different countries
Databases and Sources:
Criminal Justice Abstracts
Criminology and Penology Abstracts
Bibliographies in a variety of languages
Database listed under Campbell Crime and Justice Group website
National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS)
C2-SPECTR (includes more than 10,000 citations of randomized studies)
KRIMDOK of the University of Tübingen
IUSCRIM of the Max-Planck Institute in Freiburg Germany
Keywords:
Covering all types of sanctions:
Prison
Jail
Imprisonment
Alternative sanctions
Electronic monitoring
House arrest
Probation
Community service
Day reporting
Fines
Shock incarceration
Boot Camps
Concepts to define recidivism:
Reoffending
Reconviction
Self-reported offences
Recidivism
Re-arrest
Re-incarceration

5. Types of Outcome Measures
Most studies focus on reconviction—the occurrence/prevalence of re-arrest, re-conviction, but not frequency/incidence of new offenses. Efforts have been made to find indicators of reoffending—new arrests, contacts with police, or self-reported offenses. Also, some studies have indicated that most offenders reduce rates of offending after any type of intervention
In this review, priority given to comparing relative improvement rather than to comparing absolute levels of re-offending. Also, look at not only prevalence of reconvictions (percentage of those that re-offend) but ‘incidence rates’ too (frequencies of new offenses per time unit)—computed as the standardized mean difference

6. Methods of Review
300 citations of potentially eligible studies found and assessed for methodological quality
23 fully eligible studies located
4 randomized experimental studies and 1 natural experiment. Meta-analysis limited to these 5 studies

7. Characteristics of 23 Eligible Studies

11. Data Collection and Analysis
Coding sheet developed in accordance with guidelines of Campbell Collaboration to illustrate relevant information from eligible studies. All studies coded by I. Zoder under supervision of P. Villettaz
Vast differences in the studies methodology, research design, types of offenders, sanctions and outcome measures
Comparison with meta-analysis on recidivism after a custodial or a community-based sanction completed by Smith, Goggin and Gendreau (2002)

12. Analysis of Study Outcomes by Methodology
The same 23 studies have been grouped according to outcome by methodology. Two studies (#25 and #20) have been counted twice, and one study (#124) has been counted three times, since they provided more than one outcome measure of re-offending. Two studies show significantly lower re-offending rates following custodial sanctions, whereas 11 comparisons show significantly better outcomes for non-custodial sanctions. For 14 studies, there was no significant difference, although results were somewhat more favourable to non-custodial sanctions in four cases.
Table 2: Analysis of study outcomes by methodology (N=27 comparisons)

13. Analysis of Study Outcomes by Methodology Continued
There seems to be some association between methodological power and outcome, insofar as matched pair studies and, particularly, studies with control of several variables, yielded more results favouring non-custodial sanctions
Important to look beyond “vote counts”, as in Table
2, and to consider effect sizes as a more nuanced measure of combined effects of “alternative” versus custodial sanctions—Meta-Analysis…

14. Meta-Analysis
Use of Meta-Analysis to consider effect sizes as a measure of combined effects of alternative versus custodial sanctions
4 randomized experiments and 1 natural experiment. These studies are included due to possibility of uncontrolled differences between offenders sent to prison and those sentenced to alternative sanctions is minimal opposed to quasi-experimental designs since the possibility cannot be ruled out that decision-makers (i.e. judges) decide using criteria that remain uncontrolled, but that are likely to be related to re-conviction
Outcome measure is new offenses known to the police or reconviction during the follow-up period
Transformed original outcomes into Odds Ratios and then into appropriate Standardized Mean Difference statistic
Results indicated that custodial and non-custodial sanctions do not differ significantly regarding recidivism beyond a random effect

15. Summary of Findings
Review unable to determine if non-custodial sanctions are more effective to prevent re-offending than custodial sanctions

16. Implications Associated with Review Conclusions
Comparison of custodial and non-custodial sanctions has been of interest to criminological research for over a century. Studies have attempted to determine what sanction may be most effective in decreasing recidivism
Small number of studies (5) found that were used in Meta-Analysis
Results may be of disappointment to those that have argued that imprisonment is damaging, especially for “short” custodial sanctions
May have found convincing evidence of damaging effect of custodial sentences if weaker studies were included—difficult to include studies since great heterogeneity of the sanctions, programs and groups of offenders in other studies

17. Considerations for Future Evaluations
Not all studies reviewed dealt with the same type of offender. One study yielded results that there may be an interaction between type of offenders and types of sanctions imposed
Length of observation period various study to study
Outcome measures to estimate recidivism are not always conceptually clear—differs on context/location/definition
Custodial sanctions differ in duration and type
Studies reviewed over a 45-year period of time—questionable external validity to assess more recent programs
Unable to rule-out Hawthorne Effect—persons sanctioned to serve an alternative to incarceration may have a favorable affect to their attitudes, “a second chance,” “fair procedure”
Lack of experimental designs in the evaluations of correctional programs. Need for RCT to compare sanctions