Skip to main content

Comparing the effects of community service and imprisonment on reconviction: results from a quasi-experimental Danish study

Abstract

Objective

This study compares reconviction rates for Danish offenders sentenced to community service and imprisonment. A large general sample of offenders (n = 1602) is examined.

Methods

The study relies on a quasi-experimental design and uses propensity score matching as well as logistic regression models to analyze the data. Models are differentiated in terms of length of observation period and control variable combinations. The study stands out as compared to previous studies due to the unprecedented assortment of individual background data available. These data, obtained from community service eligibility assessments and registry databases, provide powerful controls over potential selection mechanisms in the multivariate analyses. Furthermore, contrary to previous studies, the current study limits itself to subjects officially assessed and deemed eligible for community service sentences.

Results

Imprisonment is associated with a higher rate of recidivism and the result is statistically significant at conventional statistical levels.

Conclusions

Community service (CS) compared to imprisonment appears to cause a lower reconviction rate in general. Additional research is needed to shed light on differences in time to failure, the effect of different types of CS and imprisonment, the relationship between time spent in CS and effect as well as the seriousness of offending following sentences of CS as compared to imprisonment.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Clausen (2007) actually includes information on drug abuse and mental health issues. However, this information is based on official registry data and thus likely to suffer from underreporting.

  2. 2.

    Although it needs to be said that 32 % in detention group and 41 % of the restitution/CS group entered the experiment as a result of a felony conviction (Schneider 1986: 545).

  3. 3.

    An index date after 2009 means a 3-year observation period is not possible because crime information is solely available until 2012.

  4. 4.

    The age of criminal responsibility in Denmark is at age 15.

  5. 5.

    The two averages are significantly different according to a Z-test and based on information about 152 CS offenders and 102 offenders on parole as reported by local divisions of the Danish Prison and Probation Service from February 1 to April 1 2012 (Bien 2012:3). The averages in the full observation period are unknown.

References

  1. Akers, R. (2009). Social learning and social Structure: A general theory of crime and deviance. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Andersen, S. (2012). Serving time or serving the community? Exploiting a policy reform to assess the causal effects of community service on income. social benefit dependency and recidivism. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Becker, S. H. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Berk, R. (2005). Randomized experiments as the bronze standard. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 417–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bien, N. (2012). Opgørelse af spørgeskemaundersøgelse vedr. planlagte og afholdte tilsyn. Denmark: Danish Prison and Probation Service. Accessed December 15. 2014 from http://www.kriminalforsorgen.dk/.

  6. Bondeson, U. (1989). Prisoners in prison societies. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bonneville, D., & de Marsangy, A. (1864). De l’amélioration de la loi criminelle en vue d’une justice plus prompte. plus efficace. plus généreuse et plus moralisante. vol. II. (On amending penal law by making it swifter, more efficient, more generous and more moralizing). Paris: Cosse and Marchal.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Clausen, S. (2007). Samfundstjeneste – virker det? En proces- og effektevaluering af samfundstjenesteordningen i Danmark. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Clemmer, D. (1958). The Prison Community. New York: Holt. Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Council of Europe. (1976). Alternative Penal Measures to imprisonment. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Drago, F., Galbiati, R., & Vertova, P. (2009). The Deterrent Effects of Prison: Evidence from a Natural Experiment. Journal of Political Economy, 117, 257–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ho, D., Imai, K., King, G., & Stuart, E. (2007). Matching as Nonparametric Preprocessing for Reducing Model Dependence in Parametric Causal Inference. Political Analysis, 15, 199–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ho, D., Imai, K., King. G., & Stuart, E. (2011). MatchIt: Nonparametric Preprocessing for Parametric Causal Inference. Retrieved July 28. 2014. from Harvard University site: http://r.iq.harvard.edu/docs/matchit/2.4-20/matchit.pdf.

  15. Ho, D., Imai, K., King, G. & Stuart, E. (2013). Package ‘MatchIt’. . Retrieved June 23. 2014. from R site: http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/MatchIt/MatchIt.pdf.

  16. Killias, M., & Villetaz, P. (2008). The effects of custodial vs. noncustodial sanctions on reoffending: Lessons from a systematic review. Psicothema, 20, 29–34.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Killias, M., Aebi, M., & Ribeaud, D. (2000). Does Community Service Rehabilitate better than Short-term Imprisonment? Results of a Controlled Experiment. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 40–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Killias, M., Gilliéron, G., Villard, F., & Poglia, C. (2010). How damaging is imprisonment in the long-term? A controlled experiment comparing long-term effects of community service and short custodial sentences on re-offending and social integration. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 6, 115–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Lagoni, T., & Kyvsgaard, B. (2008). Forløbsundersøgelse af samfundstjeneste. Denmark: Ministry of Justice. Accessed January 9. 2014 from http://www.justitsministeriet.dk/.

  20. Lyngstad, T., & Skardhamar, T. (2011). Nordic Register Data and Their Untapped Potential for Criminological Knowledge. Crime and Justice, 40, 613–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Minke, L. (2010). Fængslets indre liv – med særlig fokus på fængselskultur og prisonisering blandt indsatte. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Morgan, S., & Harding, D. (2006). Matching Estimators of Causal Effects: Prospects and Pitfalls in Theory and Practice. Sociological Methods & Research, 35, 3–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Nagin, D., Cullen, F., & Jonson, C. (2009). Imprisonment and Reoffending. Crime and Justice, 38, 115–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Sampson, R. (2010). Gold Standard Myths: Observations on the Experimental Turn in Quantitative Criminology. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 26, 489–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Schneider, A. (1986). Restitution and Recidivism rates of Juvenile Offenders: Results from Four Experimental Studies. Criminology, 24, 533–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Schwartz, R., & Skolnick, J. (1962). Two Studies of Legal Stigma. Social Problems, 10, 133–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Sirén, R., & Savolainen, J. (2013). No Evidence of Specific Deterrence under Penal Moderation: Imprisonment and Recidivism in Finland. Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention, 14, 80–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Stafford, M., & Warr, M. (1993). A Reconceptualization of General and Specific Deterrence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 123–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Sutherland, E., Cressey, D., & Luckenbill, D. (1992). Principles of Criminology. Lanham: General Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Van der Werff, C. (1979). Speciale Preventie. The Hauge: Justice Ministry, the Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Villettaz, P., Killias, M. & Zoder, I. (2006). The Effects of Custodial vs. Non-Custodial Sentences on Re-Offending: A Systematic Review of the State of Knowledge. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 2006, 13.

  32. Weisburd, D. (2004). Recognizing Why We Can’t Use the Gold Standard: The Case for Randomized Experiments. Nashville: Presentation at the American Society of Criminology.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Wermink, H., Blokland, A., Nieuwbeerta, P., Nagin, D., & Tollenaar, N. (2010). Comparing the Effects of Community Service and Short-term Imprisonment on Recidivism: a Matched Samples Approach. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 6, 325–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank the following list of individuals for contributing to the study in some way or another: Lin Adrian, Lars H. Andersen, Signe H. Andersen, Flemming Balvig, Susanne Clausen, Peter Fallesen, Carsten Henrichsen, Lars Holmberg, Stine L. Jensen, Tanja T. Jørgensen, Kristian B. Karlson, Britta Kyvsgaard, Anne-Julie B. Pedersen, Maria L. Pedersen, Jens H. Poulsen, three anonymous reviewers (especially reviewer three), and expressly Dave Sorensen. Furthermore, the author is grateful for the data analyzed in the study provided by Danish Prison and Probation Service.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian Klement.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 6 Summary of estimates in the logistic regression on community service versus imprisonment. The variables used in this regression are exactly the same as used in the propensity score matching, which is used in the current study
Table 7 Summary of balance within the unmatched data
Table 8 Summary of balance within the matched data
Table 9 Summary of percent balance improvement from the unmatched to the matched data
Table 10 Summary of estimates in the logistic regression model with basic controls only in 1-year observation period
Table 11 Summary of estimates in the logistic regression model with basic controls only in 3-year observation period
Table 12 Summary of estimates in the logistic regression model with basic controls, index sentence length, and index age in 1-year observation period
Table 13 Summary of estimates in the logistic regression model with basic controls, index sentence length, and index age in 3-year observation period
Table 14 Goodness-of-fit measures for all 12 logistic regression models
Table 15 Likelihood ratio tests comparing the model with basic controls and the other models within each observation period

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Klement, C. Comparing the effects of community service and imprisonment on reconviction: results from a quasi-experimental Danish study. J Exp Criminol 11, 237–261 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-015-9231-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Community service
  • Imprisonment
  • Reoffending
  • Reconviction
  • Regression
  • Quasi-experiment
  • Denmark