Crime, Intervention, and Prisoner Reentry: A Systematic Review to Inform Social Work Research and Practice

Background: Just over 1% of American adults are incarcerated in prisons or jails, of which nearly 52% will recidivate within 3 years. Increasingly, social workers find their clients have a history of criminal justice involvement. To optimize programs targeting the needs of this population, social workers must know the risk factors for criminal behaviors and the current state of correctional interventions.

The Risk-Needs-Responsivity (RNR) model is a leading change theory in correctional interventions that proffers 3 propositions: criminal behavior can be predicted, and interventions should be tailored to individuals' cumulative risk factors; when interventions address malleable crime-related risk factors, recidivism is reduced; and interventions must be tailored to individual and contextual characteristics. Using a RNR framework, this systematic review seeks to answer two questions: What malleable risk factors affect adult criminal behavior? Does the evidence indicate correctional interventions are associated with reduced criminal behavior and recidivism?

Method: Studies incorporating meta-analysis techniques were selected from five library databases and the Campbell Collaboration based on these eligibility criteria: peer-reviewed publication, conducted in North America, studies used experimental or quasi-experimental designs, sample was primarily from adult populations, outcome measures included criminal behavior or recidivism, and studies assessed malleable risk factors. Multiple studies of the same construct were matched on malleable risk factors or intervention-type and a range of mean effect sizes was extracted. This review includes 19 meta-analyses conducted from 1990-2008 that assessed 783 studies.

Results: Risk Factors (n=6). Malleable risk factors for adult criminality include: interpersonal conflict (mean effect size=.15); antisocial associates (.18-.24); substance abuse (.14); and low self-control (.22-.29). Stronger effects are found when low self-control is combined with delinquency opportunity (.51). Malleable risks following conviction include substance abuse (.11-.22); poor living arrangements (.12); antisocial peers (.24); antisocial attitudes (.22); education problems (.17); and employment problems (.22).

Interventions (n=13). Cognitive-behavioral interventions are related to reduced recidivism (.14-.46) as are therapeutic communities (.13), education programs (.10), and human service-based interventions (.12). Criminal justice interventions alone have a negligible effect on recidivism (.01). Inconclusive results are found for boot camps, custodial drug-focused group counseling, behavioral-only programs, and employment programs. A positive linear relationship is found in two studies assessing impact of the RNR model applied to recidivism: nonadherence (-.01) and high adherence (.21). No published meta-analyses on reentry programs exist.

Implications: Supporting RNR, meta-analyses show significant effects for risk factors and interventions. Despite being considered small, a .12 effect size reflected an 11 percentage-point reduction in recidivism. However, most of the effect sizes are small and some targeted interventions (e.g., employment programs) do not display consistent effects. Few studies used experimental designs, used probability samples, or examined moderating effects of demographic variables. Additional research is needed to better understand risk factors for crime and effective interventions. Many reentry initiatives use the RNR model, and empirical evaluations of such initiatives are needed. Social work researchers are positioned to respond to the growing interest in multifaceted, correctional interventions, and to be responsive to the vulnerable populations they serve.