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

Greater Manchester Public Attitudes Survey, 1974-1975

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.The purpose of this study was to collect data in order to define the main problems of the area and to help in evaluating strategies, and to collect the views of a representative cross-section of the area's population.Main Topics:Attitudinal/Behavioural Questions Length of residence in house/area, tenure (past present and preferred), details of payments (rent, mortgage, rates, rebates etc), details of changes or improvements respondent would like to see in neighbourhood. Most serious problem facing household, good aspects of and suggested improvements for present residence, expectation of move in next year (reasons), action taken, type of house considered. Head of household: employment status, journey to work (method, time, longest time prepared to travel). Woman not in paid employment: whether job wanted; reasons for non-employment; preferred hours of work. Respondents were asked to agree/disagree with a number of statements about possible changes in the job situation in Greater Manchester. Members of household in full-time education (nursery - further), opinion of educational facilities and reasons, use of social/health services during past year by members of household, opinion of facilities and reasons, shopping habits (frequency, journey to shops), other places visited while shopping, features of shopping area, location of shopping for more expensive goods other than food. Regular sport/recreation activities, frequency of visits to Manchester City Centre, importance of open countryside to respondent (reasons). Opinion on various problems in area and satisfaction with services and facilities in area, opinion on transport policy, reasons for favouring public transport or private car provision, opinion on housing policy, reasons for favouring improvement or rebuild or both, opinions on planning for shopping, reasons for favouring hypermarket or small shop development. Background Variables Age, sex, marital status, age finished full-time education, employment status, household status, socio-economic group of head of household, number of other household members (aged 0 - 4, 5 - 15, 16 - 59, 60 plus, and total). Membership of local clubs, number of cars owned or available to household, garden, income, type of dwelling

The assessment of needs for rural public transport

SIGLELD:f80/4580 / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreGBUnited Kingdo

The resource boom's underbelly: Criminological impacts of mining development

Australia is currently in the midst of a major resources boom. Resultant growing demands for labour in regional and remote areas have accelerated the recruitment of non resident workers, mostly contractors, who work extended block rosters of 12-hour shifts and are accommodated in work camps, often adjacent to established mining towns. Serious social impacts of these practices, including violence and crime, have generally escaped industry, government and academic scrutiny. This paper highlights some of these impacts on affected regional communities and workers and argues that post-industrial mining regimes serve to mask and privatize these harms and risks, shifting them on to workers, families and communities