The effects of custodial vs. non-custodial sentences on re-offending: A systematic review of the state of knowledge

As part of a broad initiative of systematic reviews of experimental or quasiexperimental evaluations of interventions in the field of crime prevention and the treatment of offenders, our work consisted in searching through all available databases for evidence concerning the effects of custodial and non-custodial sanctions on reoffending. For this purpose, we examined more than 3,000 abstracts, and finally 23 studies that met the minimal conditions of the Campbell Review, with only 5 studies based on a controlled or a natural experimental design. These studies allowed, all in all, 27 comparisons. Relatively few studies compare recidivism rates for offenders sentenced to jail or prison with those of offenders given some alternative to incarceration (typically probation). According to the findings, the rate of re-offending after a non-custodial sanction is lower than after a custodial sanction in 11 out of 13 significant comparisons. However, in 14 out of 27 comparisons, no significant difference on re-offending between both sanctions is noted. Two out of 27 comparisons are in favour of custodial sanctions. Finally, experimental evaluations and natural experiments yield results that are less favourable to non-custodial sanctions, than are quasi-experimental studies using softer designs. This is confirmed by the meta-analysis including four controlled and one natural experiment. According to the results, non-custodial sanctions are not beneficial in terms of lower rates of re-offending beyond random effects. Contradictory results reported in the literature are likely due to insufficient control of pre-intervention differences between prisoners and those serving “alternative” sanctions

A comparison of three policy approaches for tobacco retailer reduction

BACKGROUND: The Institute of Medicine recommends that public health agencies restrict the number and regulate the location of tobacco retailers as a means of reducing tobacco use. However, the best policy strategy for tobacco retailer reduction is unknown. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to test the percent reduction in the number and density of tobacco retailers in North Carolina resulting from three policies: (1) prohibiting sales of tobacco products in pharmacies or stores with a pharmacy counter, (2) restricting sales of tobacco products within 1,000 feet of schools, and (3) regulating to 500 feet the minimum allowable distance between tobacco outlets. METHODS: This study uses data from two lists of tobacco retailers gathered in 2012, one at the statewide level, and another “gold standard” three-county list. Retailers near schools were identified using point and parcel boundaries in ArcMap. Python programming language generated a random lottery system to remove retailers within 500 feet of each other. Analyses were conducted in 2014. RESULTS: A minimum allowable distance policy had the single greatest impact and would reduce density by 22.1% at the state level, or 20.8% at the county level (range 16.6% to 27.9%). Both a pharmacy and near-schools ban together would reduce density by 29.3% at the state level, or 29.7% at the county level (range 26.3 to 35.6%). CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of policies restricting tobacco sales in pharmacies, near schools, and/or in close proximity to another tobacco retailer would substantially reduce the number and density of tobacco retail outlets