Transcript Monitoring Recidivism Making international comparisons Bouke Wartna Pompidou group Council of Europe Strasbourg, France 2009, September 11th.

Monitoring
Recidivism
Making international comparisons
Bouke Wartna
Pompidou group
Council of Europe
Strasbourg, France
2009, September 11th
Our current team
Nikolaj Tollenaar
Martine Blom
Ad Essers
Inger Bregman
Daphne Alberda
Susan Alma
Bouke Wartna
Monitoring Recidivism
Strasbourg, September 11th 2009
The WODC
• International knowledge centre
• Aims to make “a professional contribution
to the development and evaluation of policy
set by the Dutch Ministry of Justice”
• About 100 fte’s; 5 divisions
• 75% of the research is commissioned out
• 2 divisions of in-house research
• Mix of ad hoc and infrastructural research
Monitoring Recidivism
Strasbourg, September 11th 2009
The Dutch Recidivism Monitor - in brief
•
•
•
•
•
•
Large scale, continuous research
Annual measurements of reconviction rates
Data from the Dutch Offenders Index (DOI)
Standardized procedures to measure recidivism
Cumulating observation periods
Use of event history models
Monitoring Recidivism
Strasbourg, September 11th 2009
Some applications
for recidivism data
•
•
•
•
Surveys and trend studies
Risk assessment & projections
Benchmarking
Research on the effectiveness of
penal interventions
Monitoring Recidivism
Strasbourg, September 11th 2009
DOI
The Dutch Offenders Index
• Encrypted version of the JDS
• Data on all cases handled by the
procecutor’s office: 10.3 mln.cases
• Access to data on 4 million persons
• Complete criminal histories of 2,5 mln. persons
• Updated every 3 months
• Historical in nature: no removals
• For scientific purposes only
Monitoring Recidivism
Strasbourg, September 11th 2009
The Dutch definition of ‘recidivism’
•
•
•
•
•
•
Based on adjudicated crime
Several criteria of recidivism
All involve reconviction for ‘crimes’ only
Acquittals etc. are left out
Sanctions by PPS are included
As well as cases that are undecided yet
Monitoring Recidivism
Strasbourg, September 11th 2009
Accumulated reconviction rates for adult offenders
convicted in the Netherlands in 1997; by sanction type
80
Percentage of recidivists
70
60
short prison term (n=10.767)
50
long prison term (n=4.283)
40
cso (n=13.262)
30
probation (n=11.083)
fine (n=34,555)
20
dismissal (n=11.545)
10
transaction (n=41,907)
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Observation period in years
Monitoring Recidivism
Strasbourg, September 11th 2009
Analyzing the data
Factors associated with reconviction
•
•
•
•
•
•
gender males represent higher risks
age at conviction the younger, the higher the risk
age at first conviction the younger, the higher the risk
country of birth ethnic minorities display more recidivism
offence risks highest after violence and property offences
# previous convictions the more, the higher the risk
•
•
•
•
cf. Lloyd, Mair and Hough (1994): England & Wales
cf. Langan & Levin (2002): USA
cf. www.ssb.no (2005): Norway
cf. Command Papers 5675 (1936): England
Monitoring Recidivism
Strasbourg, September 11th 2009
The use of projections
Predicted and actual reconviction rates
following a short prison term
0,7
proportion reconvicted
0,6
0,5
0,4
predicted
actual
0,3
0,2
0,1
0
0
1
2
3
period of observation in years
Monitoring Recidivism
Strasbourg, September 11th 2009
4
5
Countries in Europe with national recidivism data
Monitoring Recidivism
Strasbourg, September 11th 2009
ERNR
European Research group on National Reconviction rates
COUNTRY
CONTACS
Austria
Arno Pilgram, Christian Grafl, Ireen Friedrich (University of Vienna - Department of Criminology)
Denmark
Ebbe Frørup (Statistics of Denmark), Britta Kyvsgaard (Ministry of Justice)
England & Wales
Ian Knowles, Rebecca Cole, Sarah Deacon (Ministry of Justice - Criminal Justice Group)
Finland
Ville Hinkkanen, dr. Tapio-Lappi Seppälä (National Research Institute of Legal Policy)
France
Annie Kensey, Bruno Aubusson de Cavarlay (Ministere de la Justice)
Germany
Jörg-Martin Jehle, Sabine Hohmann-Fricke (Georg August Universität Göttingen - Abteilung Kriminologie)
Iceland
Margret Saemundsdottir (Statistics Iceland), Helgi Gunnlaugsson (University of Iceland)
Ireland
Nicola Hughes (University College Dublin - Institute of Criminology)
Netherlands
Bouke Wartna, Susan Alma (Ministry of Justice, Research and Documentation Centre)
Northern-Ireland
Seamus McMullan (Statistics & Research Branch)
Norway
Torbjørn Skarðhamar (Statistics Norway- Division for Social and Demographic Research)
Scotland
Elizabeth Fraser, Ian Morton (Scottish Government Justice Analytical Services)
Sweden
Arletta Plunkett (National Council for Crime Prevention - Statistical Division)
Switzerland
Daniel Fink (Swiss Federal Statistical Office - Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics)
Monitoring Recidivism
Strasbourg, September 11th 2009
Making international comparisons
of reconviction rates
6 good reasons not to do it:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Differences in judicial system;
Differences in sentencing practices;
Differences in registration;
Differences in methods and measures being used;
Differences in offender groups;
Differences in periods of observation
Monitoring Recidivism
Strasbourg, September 11th 2009
General rates of recidivism
in seven European countries
Selection
period
Definition of
N recidivism
Offender group
Austria
Adults sentenced
1983 14+
69,267 New conviction
Germany
Persons convicted or released from prison
1994 14+
947,382 New conviction
Netherlands
Persons sanctioned for a crime
1997 12+
153,834 New conviction
18.6
Sweden
Persons convicted for offences
1999 15 +
76,700 New conviction
22.0
Norway
Persons charged
1996 15+
65,086 New charge
19.6
30.5
1999 16+
45,245 New conviction
31.0
42.0
1999/Q1 10+
13,316 New conviction
Scotland
Persons convicted or released from prison
Persons released from imprison or sentenced to a
Engeland/Wales community penalty
Age
% of recidivists after x years
1
2
3
4
Country
Monitoring Recidivism
Strasbourg, September 11th 2009
5
38.0
35.7
27.7
33.4
37.4
40.4
37.4
41.5
43.4
49.0
53.0
36.0
48.0
10 steps-plan
towards more comparable reconviction statistics
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Check the availability of data in each country
Choose a common selection & follow-up period and an outcome measure
Tabulate the national reconviction rates for the original offender groups
Describe in more detail which persons belong to these groups
Harmonize the offender groups by in/excluding categories of offenders.
Re-calculate the reconviction rates for the new offender groups
Describe the offences falling under the country’s definition of ´recidivism´
Harmonize the definitions by ex/including categories of offences
Re-calculate the reconviction rates using the new definitions
Interpret the remaining differences in the adjusted reconviction rates
Monitoring Recidivism
Strasbourg, September 11th 2009
Adjusting the 2-years reconviction rates
in three European countries
Original numbers & rates
Offender group adjustments
1 Restrict the analyses to offenders aged
18 years or more - with age timed at the
conviction date
2 Restrict the analyses to those released or
convicted to a non-custodial sanction in
the year 2004
3 Select as recidivism events only those
cases having an offence date within 2
years and an decision date within 2,5
years
4 Exclude index cases that end up in a fine
or another monetary sanction
5 Exclude y % of the longest unsuspended
sentences
6 Exclude cases belonging to the bottom
x % of the least severe offences
x: can not or will not comply
rec %
N
19.0
169,731
Netherlands
Monitoring Recidivism
Strasbourg, September 11th 2009
rec %
N
55.5
46,532
England/ Wales
x
rec %
N
44.5
49,267
Scotland
x
x
x
General and special recidivism
among Dutch drug offenders
convicted in 2002 (n= 11,072)
Percentage of recidivists
45
40
35
30
25
General recidivism
20
Special recidivism
15
10
5
0
0
1
2
3
4
Observation period in years
Monitoring Recidivism
Strasbourg, September 11th 2009
5