Suchergebnisse

Under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996, individuals convicted of drug-related felonies were permanently banned from receiving welfare and food stamps. Since then, over 30 states have opted out of the federal ban. In this paper, I estimate the impact of public assistance eligibility on recidivism by exploiting both the adoption of the federal ban and subsequent passage of state laws that lifted the ban. Using administrative prison records on five million offenders and a triple-differences research design, I find that public assistance eligibility for drug offenders reduces one-year recidivism rates by 10 percent.

Regardless of the model, forms and/or strategies of crime prevention, we believe that a component related to the prevention of recidivism should not be missing. Through this article, we aim to highlight some theoretical aspects that could be taken into account in the foundation of some public/penal policies in our country, starting with conceptual clarifications, pointing out prevention models and representative theories and ending with some conclusions.

This assesses the effectiveness of rehabilitation programs, specialized treatment for different types of offenders, management and treatment of drug-involved offenders and punishment, control and surveillance interventions to provide an intensive review of correctional interventions and programs. Through extensive research, MacKenzie illustrates which of these programs are most effective and why

1. Criminal recidivism -- 2. Criminal careers, recidivists and chronic offenders -- 3. Chronic offenders and their life stories -- 4. Risk assessment -- 5. Psychopathy -- 6. Sex offending -- 7. Evidence-based intervention and treatment -- 8. Conclusions.

Abstract
This study uses a large data set to analyze and predict recidivism of juvenile offenders in Pennsylvania. We employ a split-population duration model to determine the effect of covariates on (1) the probability of failure, defined as a second referral to juvenile court, and (2) the time to failure, given that it occurs. A test of the predictive power of our estimates finds a false positive rate of 18.5% and a false negative rate of 20.7%, which compares favorably to the performance of other models in the literature.