青少年司法中的社区制裁与其他青少年犯罪反应的比较:一项元分析

IF 2 3区 社会学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Gwendolyn J. Koops-Geuze, F. Weerman
{"title":"青少年司法中的社区制裁与其他青少年犯罪反应的比较:一项元分析","authors":"Gwendolyn J. Koops-Geuze, F. Weerman","doi":"10.1177/14773708211035305","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This meta-analysis examines the official recidivism effects of two types of community sanctions in youth justice, namely community service and behavioural intervention programmes. Two analyses were conducted: a comparison between the effects of community sanctions and custodial sanctions, versus a comparison between the effects of community sanctions and dismissals. Following a systematic literature search, data extraction and analysis, mean effect sizes were calculated utilizing (log) odds ratio as the main effect measure. To explore heterogeneity, a meta-regression was conducted with four moderator variables: methodological rigour, referral stage, main focus of sanction and sample risk level. The hypotheses were that recidivism would be significantly lower for delinquent youth subject to community sanctions compared with those subject to custodial sanctions, but that differences in recidivism between delinquent youth subject to community sanctions versus dismissals would be insignificant. In total, 23 studies were deemed eligible for inclusion (Ncust = 7, Ndism = 16). Final results were in favour of the hypotheses, namely, significantly lower recidivism rates for community sanctions compared with custodial sanctions, and no significant differences for community sanctions compared with dismissals. For both comparisons, the 95% confidence interval indicated the effects varied from just below zero to substantially in favour of community sanctions. Finally, moderator analysis revealed that studies of lower methodological quality and mixed referral stages were more likely to report larger effect sizes.","PeriodicalId":51475,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Criminology","volume":"20 1","pages":"758 - 781"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Community sanctions in youth justice compared to other youth crime responses: A meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Gwendolyn J. Koops-Geuze, F. Weerman\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/14773708211035305\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This meta-analysis examines the official recidivism effects of two types of community sanctions in youth justice, namely community service and behavioural intervention programmes. Two analyses were conducted: a comparison between the effects of community sanctions and custodial sanctions, versus a comparison between the effects of community sanctions and dismissals. Following a systematic literature search, data extraction and analysis, mean effect sizes were calculated utilizing (log) odds ratio as the main effect measure. To explore heterogeneity, a meta-regression was conducted with four moderator variables: methodological rigour, referral stage, main focus of sanction and sample risk level. The hypotheses were that recidivism would be significantly lower for delinquent youth subject to community sanctions compared with those subject to custodial sanctions, but that differences in recidivism between delinquent youth subject to community sanctions versus dismissals would be insignificant. In total, 23 studies were deemed eligible for inclusion (Ncust = 7, Ndism = 16). Final results were in favour of the hypotheses, namely, significantly lower recidivism rates for community sanctions compared with custodial sanctions, and no significant differences for community sanctions compared with dismissals. For both comparisons, the 95% confidence interval indicated the effects varied from just below zero to substantially in favour of community sanctions. Finally, moderator analysis revealed that studies of lower methodological quality and mixed referral stages were more likely to report larger effect sizes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51475,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Criminology\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"758 - 781\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Criminology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/14773708211035305\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Criminology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14773708211035305","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

本荟萃分析考察了两种类型的社区制裁在青少年司法中的正式累犯效应,即社区服务和行为干预计划。进行了两项分析:比较社区制裁和拘禁制裁的影响,以及比较社区制裁和解雇的影响。经过系统的文献检索、数据提取和分析,利用(log)优势比作为主要效应测量,计算平均效应大小。为了探索异质性,我们采用了四个调节变量进行meta回归:方法严谨性、转诊阶段、制裁的主要焦点和样本风险水平。假设接受社区制裁的犯罪青年的再犯率明显低于接受监禁制裁的犯罪青年,但接受社区制裁的犯罪青年与被解雇的犯罪青年的再犯率差异不显著。总共有23项研究被认为符合纳入条件(Ncust = 7, Ndism = 16)。最后的结果支持假设,即社区制裁的再犯率比监禁制裁低得多,社区制裁与解雇没有显著差异。对于这两项比较,95%置信区间表明,影响从略低于零到大大有利于社区制裁。最后,调节因子分析显示,低方法学质量和混合转诊阶段的研究更有可能报告更大的效应量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Community sanctions in youth justice compared to other youth crime responses: A meta-analysis
This meta-analysis examines the official recidivism effects of two types of community sanctions in youth justice, namely community service and behavioural intervention programmes. Two analyses were conducted: a comparison between the effects of community sanctions and custodial sanctions, versus a comparison between the effects of community sanctions and dismissals. Following a systematic literature search, data extraction and analysis, mean effect sizes were calculated utilizing (log) odds ratio as the main effect measure. To explore heterogeneity, a meta-regression was conducted with four moderator variables: methodological rigour, referral stage, main focus of sanction and sample risk level. The hypotheses were that recidivism would be significantly lower for delinquent youth subject to community sanctions compared with those subject to custodial sanctions, but that differences in recidivism between delinquent youth subject to community sanctions versus dismissals would be insignificant. In total, 23 studies were deemed eligible for inclusion (Ncust = 7, Ndism = 16). Final results were in favour of the hypotheses, namely, significantly lower recidivism rates for community sanctions compared with custodial sanctions, and no significant differences for community sanctions compared with dismissals. For both comparisons, the 95% confidence interval indicated the effects varied from just below zero to substantially in favour of community sanctions. Finally, moderator analysis revealed that studies of lower methodological quality and mixed referral stages were more likely to report larger effect sizes.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
European Journal of Criminology
European Journal of Criminology CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY-
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
5.30%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Criminology is a refereed journal published by SAGE publications and the European Society of Criminology. It provides a forum for research and scholarship on crime and criminal justice institutions. The journal published high quality articles using varied approaches, including discussion of theory, analysis of quantitative data, comparative studies, systematic evaluation of interventions, and study of institutions of political process. The journal also covers analysis of policy, but not description of policy developments. Priority is given to articles that are relevant to the wider Europe (within and beyond the EU) although findings may be drawn from other parts of the world.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信