A systematic review of criminal recidivism rates worldwide: 3-year update [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]

Abstract

Background: Comparing recidivism rates between countries may provide useful information about the relative effectiveness of different criminal justice policies. A previous 2015 review identified criminal recidivism data for 18 countries and found little consistency in outcome definitions and time periods. We aimed to update recidivism rates in prisoners internationally.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review of criminal recidivism rates in prisoners and followed PRISMA guidelines. Using five bibliographic indexes, we carried out non-country-specific and targeted searches for 50 countries with the largest total prison populations. We included reports and studies of released prisoners that reported re-arrest, reconviction and reincarceration rates. Meta-analysis was not possible due to multiple sources of heterogeneity.

Results: We identified criminal recidivism information for 23 countries. Of the 50 countries with the largest prison populations, 10 reported recidivism rates for prisoners. The most commonly reported outcome was the 2-year reconviction rate. We were able to examine reconviction between different time periods for 11 countries and found that most reported small changes in official recidivism rates. Overall, for 2-year follow-up period, reported re-arrest rates were between 26% and 60%, reconviction rates ranged from 20% to 63%, and reimprisonment rates varied from 14 to 45%.

Conclusions: Although some countries have made efforts to improve reporting, recidivism rates are not comparable between countries. Criminal justice agencies should consider using reporting guidelines described here to update their data.

Introduction

The number of prisoners and associated expenditure continue to increase worldwide (MacDonald, 2018; McLaughlin et al., 2016; Penal Reform International, 2018; Sridhar et al., 2018). Released prisoners are at higher risk of criminal recidivism than those serving non-custodial sentences (Ministry of Justice, 2018) with around one-fifth of all crimes in any year being committed by those released from custody (Petersilia, 2011). Although most of these recidivism events are non-violent (property crimes, violation of post-release conditions, etc.), released prisoners also have an elevated risk of violent recidivism, which are much more impactful because of high associated physical and psychological morbidity (Heeks et al., 2018). In the USA, 20% of released prisoners commit a new violent offence in the three years after release (Alper et al., 2018). In the UK, relative economic and social costs of reoffending in released prisoners are estimated to be double that of individuals receiving community sentences (Newton et al., 2019). With the increasing recognition of the health burden of violence and crime (World Health Organisation, 2014), reducing recidivism can make a large contribution to public safety and public health.

Recidivism rates (or rates of repeat offending) are often used as a measure of effectiveness of prison systems and post-release offender management programmes (Ministry of Justice, 2017). The comparison of recidivism rates between countries and regions may provide useful information about relative effectiveness of different sentencing and rehabilitation policies. However, the operational definitions of recidivism may vary significantly between countries. In a previous systematic review, recidivism rates among prisoners worldwide, published before December 2014, were examined (Fazel & Wolf, 2015) and differences in outcome definitions, reporting practices and their comparability between countries were outlined. In addition, a proposed reporting guideline to facilitate international comparisons of recidivism statistics was published.

Here, we provide an update on recidivism rates in prisoners worldwide.

Methods

This review builds up on the methods of the previously published study by Fazel & Wolf (2015). We expanded the search to other databases and modified the search strategy. We searched SAGE, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES for the last 10 years (from 01.01.2008 until 23.07.2019) with no language restrictions. The keywords included the names of the 50 countries with largest prison populations in absolute terms (World Prison Brief, 2018) and a list of commonly reported outcomes (Figure 1). Google Scholar and Google Web were used for subsequent targeted searches. In addition, we scanned reference lists of included documents. In case of multiple reports identified for the same country, we extracted the most recent data. Studies for geographical regions within the country were included if the national information were unavailable or dated.

Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram.

Search on SAGE, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycArticles, PsycINFO from 01.01.2008 until 23.07.2019, with no language restrictions: prisoners AND (prevalence OR rates) AND (recidivism OR reoffending) AND (USA OR “United States” OR China OR Russia* OR Brazil OR India OR Thailand OR Indonesia OR Turkey OR Iran OR Mexico OR Philippines OR “South Africa” OR Vietnam OR Colombia OR Ethiopia OR Egypt OR Bangladesh OR Peru OR Pakistan OR “United Kingdom” OR Morocco OR Argentina OR Myanmar OR Burma OR Nigeria OR Poland OR France OR Taiwan OR Germany OR “Saudi Arabia” OR Rwanda OR Algeria OR Italy OR Spain OR Cuba OR Venezuela OR Malaysia OR “South Korea” OR Uganda OR Kenya OR Japan OR Iraq OR Uzbekistan OR Chile OR Australia OR Canada OR Salvador OR Ecuador OR Belarus OR Kazakhstan).

We included cohorts where reconviction, re-arrest, and re-imprisonment rates in released prisoners were reported. We excluded studies of recidivism in individuals receiving non-custodial sentences or in heterogeneous samples of offenders without data for a subgroup of released prisoners. If no new data had been identified for a particular country, we reported the rates from the original review (Fazel & Wolf, 2015). Due to heterogeneity in outcome definition and time periods, meta-analysis was not conducted.

DY and SS conducted the search and independently extracted the data on country, sample selection, definitions of outcomes and rates. Uncertainties were checked with SF. The publications in languages other than English were translated with the assistance of native speakers, who were either employees or students at Oxford University.

Results

We identified 28 publications that reported recidivism rates in released prisoners from 25 countries (Table 1 and Table 2). One additional publication (Graunbøl et al., 2010) with data on Finland and Norway was included from the previous review (Fazel & Wolf, 2015), as no new data were identified for these countries. Of the 50 countries with the largest prison populations, recidivism statistics were identified for 10 countries (Australia, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Italy, South Korea, Spain, USA, UK: England and Wales). The data were published by governmental agencies apart from one published thesis (Yeoman, 2015). In addition, we identified several publications that reported cross-sectional data on recidivism (i.e. how many current prisoners had previous convictions; from Brunei, Finland, Ghana, India, Russia and Thailand) but these did not provide information on time at risk and were excluded.

Table 1. Description of the extracted data.

Country	Publication	Description of outcomes	Follow-up	Notes and exclusions
Australia	Australian Government, 2018	Reconviction Return of an individual to Corrective Services during a follow-up period. Reimprisonment Return of an individual to prison.	2 years	Age range is unclear
Austria	Statistik Austria, 2018	Reconviction New criminal conviction during a follow-up period.	1, 2, 3, 4 years
Canada – Ontario	Ontario Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, 2017	Reconviction Return to a provincial correctional supervision after committing an offence during the time of follow-up	2 years	Includes individual receiving a sentence longer than 6 months. Excludes individuals sentenced to federal prisons
Canada – Quebec	Ministère de la Sécurité publique, 2015	Reconviction Reimprisonment The new crime has to happen during a follow-up period and extra 2 years are allowed for finalisation of the sentence.	2 years	Recidivism events resulting from breaches of parole or probation conditions are excluded
Chile	Gendarmería de Chile, 2013	Reconviction New criminal conviction during a follow-up period.	2 years
Denmark	Statistics Denmark, 2018	Reconviction 3 years after follow-up ends, an individual can be sentenced for an offence committed during the follow-up period.	6 months, 1 year, 2 years	Cohort of people released from custody aged 20 years old and older.
Estonia	Ahven et al., 2018	Re-arrest Being a suspect of a crime. Reconviction New criminal conviction during a follow-up period.	1, 2, 5 years	No precise data provided that would allow for estimation of the cohorts’ sizes.
Finland*	Graunbøl et al., 2010	Reconviction The offence and conviction both have to happen during a follow-up period	2 years
France	Ministère de la Justice, 2013	Reconviction The offence and conviction both have to happen during a follow-up to be counted as recidivism.	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 years	Follow-up period starts next calendar year from the year of initial conviction. Follow-up may overlap with time in prison.
Germany	Hans-Jörg & Jörg-Martin, 2014	Reconviction The offence and conviction both have to happen during a follow-up to be counted as recidivism.	3 years
Iceland	Yeoman, 2015	Reconviction New criminal conviction during a follow-up period	2 years	Includes prisoners in Vernd (“halfway house”, type of parole)
Ireland, Republic of	Central Statistics Office, 2016	Reconviction To be counted as a recidivism event, an offence has to occur within a follow-up period and a conviction has to happen within two years after the offence.	3 years
Israel	Walk & Berman, 2015	Reimprisonment Receiving a new prison sentence during a follow-up period.	1, 2, 3, 4, 5 years
Italy	Mastrobuoni & Terlizzese, 2014	Re-arrest A new arrest during a follow-up period.	3 years	Selected sample. May not be fully representative.
Latvia	Ķipēna et al., 2013	Reconviction (or initiation of proceedings) A new criminal charge that did not results in acquittal or other technical dismissal during a follow-up period.	29 months
Netherlands	Ministerie van Justice en Veiligheid, 2018	Reconviction (or initiation of proceedings) A new criminal charge that did not results in acquittal or other technical dismissal during a follow-up period	1, 2, 3 years
New Zealand	Department of Corrections, 2017; Department of Corrections, 2018	Reconviction The crime and conviction should both happen during a follow-up to be counted as recidivism. Reimprisonment Receiving a new prison sentence during a follow-up period.	1, 2 years
Norway*	Graunbøl et al., 2010	Reconviction The offence and conviction both have to happen during a follow-up period	2 years
Singapore	Singapore Prison Service, 2019	Re-arrest Released individual detained or convicted and imprisoned again for any new offence during a follow-up period.	2 years	Includes Drug Rehabilitation Centre inmates. No precise data provided that would allow for estimation of the cohort’s size.
South Korea	Indicator, 2019	Reimprisonment Receiving a new prison sentence during a follow-up period.	3 years
Spain – Catalonia	Area of Research and Social and Criminological Formation, 2015	Reimprisonment Receiving a new prison sentence during a follow-up period.	3.5 years
Sweden	Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention, 2018	Reconviction The new crime has to happen during the follow-up period and extra 3 years are allowed for finalisation of the sentence	1, 2, 3 years
UK: E&W	Ministry of Justice, 2018	Proven reoffending 6 months after observational period ends, an individual can be sentenced for an offence committed during this period.	1 year
UK: N. Ireland	Department of Justice, 2017	Proven reoffending 6 months after observational period ends, an individual can be sentenced for an offence committed during this period.	1 year
UK: Scotland	Scottish Government, 2018	Reconviction New criminal conviction during a follow-up period.	1 year
USA (federal)	Alper et al., 2018	Re-arrest An arrest should happen during a follow-up period anywhere in the US.	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 years	The same 2005 federal cohort as examined in Fazel & Wolf (2015). Data for longer follow-up periods became available and the rates were recalculated.
USA (23 states)	Gelb & Velázquez, 2018	Reimprisonment Return to a prison in the same state during a follow-up period.	1, 2, 3 years	States included in the analysis: Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin.
USA – N. Carolina	Flinchum et al., 2016	Re-arrest Reconviction Reimprisonment To be accounted for, a respective event (new arrest, conviction or reimprisonment) should happen during a follow-up period on the state territory.	1, 2 years
USA – Oregon	State of Oregon Criminal Justice Commission, 2018	Re-arrest Reconviction Reimprisonment To be a accounted for, a respective event (new arrest, conviction or reimprisonment) should happen during a follow-up period on the state territory.	1, 2, 3 years	Includes released prisoners on parole and post-release supervision.

^* Recidivism rates from the original review (Fazel & Wolf, 2015) were reported since no new data had become available.

Table 2. Reconviction, re-arrest and reimprisonment rates in released prisoners by country and follow-up period length.

Country	Year	Cohort size	Follow-up	Re-arrest	Reconviction	Reimprisonment	Publication
Australia	2014–2015	n/a	2 years		53%	45%	Australian Government, 2018
Austria	2013	7,185	1 year		15%		Statistik Austria, 2018
			2 years		26%
			3 years		32%
			4 years		36%
Canada – Ontario	2014–2015	2,610	2 years		35%		Ontario Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, 2017
Canada – Quebec	2007–2008	9,483	2 years		55%	43%	Ministère de la Sécurité publique, 2015
Chile	2010	20,625	2 years		39%		Gendarmería de Chile, 2013
Denmark	2013	3,904	6 months		36%		Statistics Denmark, 2018
			1 year		51%
			2 years		63%
Estonia	2013–2014	n/a	1 year	37%	16%		Ahven et al., 2018
			2 years	59%	35%
	2011–2012	n/a	5 years	76%	58%
Finland*	2005	4,507	2 years		36%		Graunbøl et al., 2010
France	2004	78,580	1 year		26%		Ministère de la Justice, 2013
			2 years		40%
			3 years		48%
			4 years		54%
			5 years		58%
			6 years		61%
Germany	2007	26,602	3 years		46%		Jehle, 2014
Iceland	2009–2011	322	2 years		27%		Yeoman, 2015
Ireland, Republic of	2010	9,339	3 years		45%		Central Statistics Office. 2016
Italy	2001–2009	479 (sample)	3 years	28% (24% - 32%)			Mastrobuoni & Terlizzese, 2014
Israel	2008	6,724	1 year			18%	Walk & Berman, 2015
			2 years			28%
			3 years			34%
			4 years			38%
			5 years			41%
Latvia	2009	442 (sample)	29 months		50% (45% - 55%)		Ķipēna et al., 2013
Netherlands	2013	31,168	1 year		35%		Ministerie van Justice en Veiligheid, 2018
			2 years		46%
			3 years		51%
New Zealand	2015–2016	n/a	1 year		46%	32%	Department of Corrections, 2017
			2 years		61%	43%	Department of Corrections, 2018
Norway*	2005	8,788	2 years		20%		Graunbøl et al., 2010
Singapore	2015	n/a	2 years	24%			Singapore Prison Service, 2019
South Korea	2013	22,121	3 years			25%	Indicator, 2019
Spain – Catalonia	2010	3,414	3.5 years			30%	Area of Research and Social and Criminological Formation, 2015
Sweden	2011	7,738	1 year		51%		Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention, 2018
			2 years		61%
			3 years		65%
UK: E&W	2015–2016	61,410	1 year		48%		Ministry of Justice, 2018
UK: N. Ireland	2014–2015	1,417	1 year		37%		Department of Justice, 2017
UK: Scotland	2015–2016	6,295	1 year		43%		Scottish Government, 2018
USA (federal)	2005	401,288	1 year	44%			Alper et al., 2018
			2 years	60%
			3 years	68%
			4 years	74%
			5 years	77%
			6 year	80%
			7 years	81%
			8 years	82%
			9 years	83%
USA (23 states)	2012	392,130	1 year			23%	Gelb & Velázquez, 2018
			2 year			32%
			3 year			37%
USA – N. Carolina	2013	13,873	1 year	31%	11%	12%	Flinchum et al., 2016
			2 years	48%	26%	21%
USA – Oregon	2014	4,357	1 year	40%	23%	7%	State of Oregon Criminal Justice Commission, 2018
			2 years	51%	36%	14%
			3 years	57%	43%	19%

* recidivism rates from the original review (Fazel & Wolf, 2015) were reported since no new data had become available.

All included reports were conducted on general populations except for the studies from Italy (n = 479) and Latvia (n = 442). For Italian and Latvian samples, we estimated 95% confidence intervals, assuming normal distribution (provided in parentheses).

For all reported outcomes, a two-year follow-up period was the most commonly used. As shown in Table 2, the two-year re-arrest rates ranged from 24% (Singapore) to 60% (USA), two-year reconviction rates ranged from 20% (Norway) to 63% (Denmark), and two-year reimprisonment rates ranged from 14% (Oregon, USA) to 45% (Australia) (see Table 3 for two-year reconviction rates from included countries).

Table 3. Two-year reconviction rates in released prisoners.

Country	Year	Cohort size	Reconviction	Publication
Australia	2014–2015	n/a	53%	Australian Government, 2018
Austria	2013	7,185	26%	Statistik Austria, 2018
Canada – Ontario	2014–2015	2,610	35%	Ontario Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, 2017
Canada – Quebec	2007–2008	9,483	55%	Ministère de la Sécurité publique, 2015
Chile	2010	20,625	39%	Gendarmería de Chile, 2013
Denmark	2013	3,904	63%	Statistics Denmark, 2018
Estonia	2013–2014	n/a	35%	Ahven et al., 2018
Finland*	2005	4,507	36%	Graunbøl et al., 2010
France	2004	78,580	40%	Ministère de la Justice, 2013
Iceland	2009–2011	322	27%	Yeoman, 2015
Netherlands	2013	31,168	46%	Ministerie van Justice en Veiligheid, 2018
New Zealand	2014–2015	n/a	60%	Department of Corrections, 2018
Norway*	2005	8,788	20%	Graunbøl et al., 2010
Sweden	2011	7,738	61%	Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention, 2018
USA (federal)	2005	401,288	60%	Alper et al., 2018
USA – N. Carolina	2013	13,873	26%	Flinchum et al., 2016
USA – Oregon	2014	4,357	36%	State of Oregon Criminal Justice Commission, 2018

* reconviction rates from the original review (Fazel & Wolf, 2015) were reported since no new data had become available.

We additionally compared reconviction rates examined in the previous review (Fazel & Wolf, 2015) with updated information (Table 4). Such comparisons were possible for 11 countries (Denmark, France, Germany, Iceland, Singapore, Republic of Ireland, Sweden, Singapore, UK: England and Wales, UK: Northern Ireland, UK: Scotland).

Table 4. The comparison of the reconviction rates in released prisoners reported in the previous review (Fazel & Wolf, 2015) with those reported in the present review.

Country	Previously reported rate (year)	New rate (year)	Notes
1-year reconviction
UK: E&W	46% (2000) 45% (2012/2013)	48% (2015/2016)	Change in data source and cohort composition in 2015. Rates for 2012/2013 were recalculated as 49% in the newly published statistics. Significant difference between recalculated 2012/2013 rates and 2015/2016 rates (χ2 = 15.6, df = 1, p = 0.0001).
UK: N. Ireland	25% (2005)	37% (2014/2015)	Changes in the outcome definition. 1- and 2-year reconviction rates were used as outcomes in the older report. In the newer report, ‘proven reconviction’ is used, which is 1-year reconviction rate with an extra 6-month period to allow for the imposition of a court conviction. The management of individuals’ data and the agencies responsible for it have also changed (outlined in the reports’ methodology sections).
UK: Scotland	46% (2009/2010)	43% (2015/2016)	Rates for 2009/2010 were recalculated from 45.7% in the old publication to 46.3% in the newly published statistics. Significant difference between recalculated 2009/2010 rates and 2015/2016 rates (χ2 = 11.4, df = 1, p = 0.0007).
2-year reconviction
Denmark	29% (2005)	63% (2013)	Changes in reporting practices and outcome operationalisation. The online recidivism calculator was introduced by Statistics Denmark, which allows to choose required composition of the cohort of interest. The new sample excludes individuals younger than 20 years old. The new outcome now includes an extra 1-year period to allow for the imposition of a court conviction (no such period was used in the calculation of the previous reconviction rate).
Sweden	43% (2005)	61% (2011)	Changes in the outcome operationalisation. The new outcome now includes an extra 3-year period to allow for the imposition of a court conviction (no such period was used in the calculation of the previous reconviction rate).
Iceland	27% (2005)	27% (2009/2011)	No significant difference (χ2 = 0, df = 1, p = 0.9984).
Netherlands	48% (2007)	46% (2013)	Rates for 2007 were recalculated as 49% in the newly published statistics. Significant difference between 2007 recalculated rates and 2013 rates (χ2 =94.2, df = 1, p = 0.0001).
Singapore	27% (2011)	26% (2015)	No exact information about sample size available.
3-year reconviction
Germany	48% (2004)	46% (2007)	Sample sizes estimation were taken from Hohmann-Fricke (2014). Significant difference (χ2 = 18.4, df = 1, p = 0.0001).
Ireland, Republic of	51% (2008)	45% (2010)	Significant difference (χ2 = 48.1, df = 1, p = 0.0001). Larger number of prisoners in the newer cohort.
5-year reconviction
France	59% (2002)	58% (2004)	No significant difference (χ2 = 2.6, df = 1, p = 0.1042).

Discussion

In this systematic review, we have presented worldwide prisoner recidivism rates and found that only 10 out of 50 countries with the largest prison populations reported recidivism statistics for cohorts of released prisoners. This finding suggests the lack of systematic and open approach towards recidivism research in many countries, despite its importance for public safety and health. In addition, Although some jurisdictions have made efforts to increase comparability of recidivism statistics (e.g., Northern Ireland implemented the same reconviction criteria as England and Wales), overall recidivism rates remain difficult to compare between countries because of significant variations in outcome definitions and reporting practices. In particular, when reporting reconviction rates, certain jurisdictions with lower rates (e.g Norway and North Carolina) operationalise recidivism as both an offence and conviction that have to occur during a specified follow-up period. This definition of recidivism is thus contingent on the length of court proceedings, and reconviction rates are typically lower when compared to jurisdictions that allow additional time after the follow-up period for court proceedings (and convictions) to be finalised (see Figure 2). For two countries that were included in the original 2015 review, no new published data was identified (Finland and Norway).

Figure 2. One- and two-year reconviction rates in released prisoners in different jurisdictions by usage of additional time after the follow-up period for finalization of court proceedings.

Note: *the Netherlands used the initiation of court proceedings that did not result in acquittal or technical dismissal during the follow-up as an outcome.

Overall, for the countries with updated data available, any changes in recidivism rates over time were small where there were no obvious revisions to reporting practices. This contrasts with reductions in self-reported crime in some surveys in high-income countries such as England and Wales (Office for National Statistics, 2018). Changes in rates were observed in those countries that changed the operationalisation of the outcome or the ways they collected and reported data. One exception to this is the Republic of Ireland, where the reconviction rate decreased by 6% in 3 years in the absence of any obvious changes in reporting practices. During this period, the number of people in the released prisoners’ cohort nearly doubled from 5,489 in 2008 (Central Statistics Office, 2013) to 9,339 in 2010 (Central Statistics Office, 2016).

We conclude that international comparisons between countries remain problematic, and the use of a checklist (Appendix 1; Fazel et al., 2019a) may facilitate more consistent and transparent reporting of recidivism rates.

Data availability

Appendix 1, containing the recidivism reporting checklist, is available from OSF.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/QVTFB (Fazel et al., 2019a).

License: CC0 1.0 Universal.

Reporting guidelines

A completed PRISMA checklist is available on OSF. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/7SZJC (Yukhnenko et al., 2019b)

Faculty Opinions recommended

References

Ahven A, Roots A, Sööt ML: Retsidiivsus Eestis 2017. 2018.

Alper M, Durose MR, Markman J: 2018 update on prisoner recidivism: a 9-year follow-up period (2005-2014). 2018.

Area of Research and Social and Criminological Formation: Executive report 2014. 2015.

Australian Government: Report on Government Services 2018: Part C. 2018.

Central Statistics Office: Prison Recidivism: 2008 Cohort. Dublin: Central Statistics Office, Ireland. 2013.

Central Statistics Office: Prison recidivism 2010 cohort. 2016.

Department of Corrections: Annual report: 1 July 2016 - 30 June 2017. 2017.

Department of Corrections: Annual report: 1 July 2017 - 30 June 2018. 2018.

Department of Justice: Research and Statistical bulletin 29-2017. Adult and Youth Reoffending in Northern Ireland 2014-15. 2017.

Fazel S, Wolf A, Yukhnenko D: Recidivism reporting checklist. 2019a. http://www.doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/QVTFB

Fazel S, Wolf A: A Systematic Review of Criminal Recidivism Rates Worldwide: Current Difficulties and Recommendations for Best Practice. PLoS One. 2015; 10(6): e0130390.

Flinchum T, Hevener H, Hall M, et al.: Correctional program evaluation: offenders placed on probation or released from prison in FY 2013. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission. 2016.

Gelb A, Velázquez T: The changing state of recidivism: fewer people going back to prison. 2018.

Gendarmería de Chile: La reincidencia: un desafío para la gestión del Sistema penitenciario chileno y las políticas públicas [in Spanish]. 2013.

Graunbøl HM, Kielstrup B, Muiluvuori ML, et al.: Retur: en nordisk undersøgelse af recidiv blant klienter i kriminalforsorgen [in Danish, Norwegian, Swedish]. Oslo, Norway: Kriminalomsorgens utdanningssenter. 2010.

Hans-Jörg A, Jörg-Martin J: National reconviction statistics and studies in Europe. Göttingen, Germany: Universitätsverlag Göttingen. 2014.

Heeks M, Reed S, Tafsiri M, et al.: The economic and social costs of crime. 2018.

Hohmann-Fricke S: Auswahl, Prüfung und Aufbereitung der Daten der deutsche Rückfalluntersuchung [in German]. Albrecht HJ, Jehle JM, (Ed). National reconviction statistics and studies in Europe. Göttingen, Germany: Universitätsverlag Göttingen. 2014: 159–181.

Indicator: Recidivism rate [in Korean]. 2019.

Jehle JM: Approach, structure and outcome of the German reconviction study. Albrecht HJ, Jehle JM, (Ed). National reconviction statistics and studies in Europe. Göttingen, Germany: Universitätsverlag Göttingen. 2014: 159–181.

Ķipēna K, Zavackis A, Ņikišins J: Sodu izcietušo personu noziedzīgo nodarījumu recidīvs. Jurista Vārds. 2013; 35(786): 12–17.

MacDonald M: Overcrowding and its impact on prison conditions and health. Int J Prison Health. 2018; 14(2): 65–68.

Mastrobuoni G, Terlizzese D: Rehabilitation and recidivism: evidence from an Open Prison. 2014.

McLaughlin M, Pettus-Davis C, Brown D, et al.: The economic burden of incarceration in the US. 2016.

Ministère de la Justice: Mesurer la récidive: Contribution à la conférence de consensus de prévention de la récidive [in French]. 2013.

Ministère de la Sécurité publique: Projet: Enquête sur la récidive/reprise de la clientèle confiée aux Services correctionnels du Québec [in French]. 2015.

Ministerie van Justice en Veiligheid: Recidivemonitor. Repris [in Dutch]. 2018.

Ministry of Justice: Prison performance statistics 2016 to 2017. 2017.

Ministry of Justice: Proven reoffending statistics quarterly: January 2016 to March 2016. 2018.

Newton A, May X, Eames S, et al.: Economic and social costs of reoffending: analytical report. 2019.

Office for National Statistics: Crime in England and Wales: year ending March 2018. 2018.

Ontario Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services: Rates of recidivism (re-conviction) in Ontario. 2017.

Penal Reform International: Global prison trends 2018. 2018.

Petersilia J: Beyond the prison bubble. Wilson Quarterly. 2011; 35: 50–55.

Scottish Government: Reconviction rates in Scotland: 2015-16 Offender Cohort. 2018.

Singapore Prison Service: Recidivism rate. 2019.

Sridhar S, Cornish R, Fazel S: The Costs of Healthcare in Prison and Custody: Systematic Review of Current Estimates and Proposed Guidelines for Future Reporting. Front Psychiatry. 2018; 9: 716.

State of Oregon Criminal Justice Commission: Recidivism. 2018.

Statistics Denmark: Recidivism. 2018.

Statistik Austria: Kriminalität [in German]. 2018.

Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention: Recidivism. 2018.

Walk D, Berman E: The Recidivism of Israeli prisoners. Ramla, Israel: Israel Prison Service. 2015.

World Health Organisation: Global status report on violence prevention 2014. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO Press. 2014.

World Prison Brief: Highest to lowest: prison population total. 2018.

Yeoman KÖ: Recidivism among Icelandic prison inmates released in 2009-2011 (thesis, Reykjavik University). 2015.

Yukhnenko D, Sridhar S, Fazel S, et al.: PRISMA checklist for “A systematic review of criminal recidivism rates worldwide: 3-year update” (Yukhnenko, Sridhar, Fazel). 2019b. http://www.doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/7SZJC