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.
Highlights
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)
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
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
Summary
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. Comparing recidivism rates between countries may provide useful information about the relative effectiveness of different criminal justice policies. Criminal justice agencies should consider using reporting guidelines described here to update their data
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
