文献类型：期刊文献

英文题名：Are risk-need-responsivity principles golden? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of community correction programs

作者：Duan, Wenjie[1];Wang, Zichuan[1];Yang, Caiyun[2];Ke, Shuting[2]

机构：[1]East China Univ Sci & Technol, Sch Social & Publ Adm, Shanghai, Peoples R China;[2]Shanghai Normal Univ, Sch Philosophy & Law & Polit Sci, Dept Sociol, 100 Guilin Rd, Shanghai 200234, Peoples R China

年份：2024

卷号：20

期号：2

起止页码：593

外文期刊名：JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL CRIMINOLOGY

收录：;WOS:【SSCI(收录号:WOS:000910768500001)】；

基金：The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was partially supported by Shanghai Youth Project of Philosophy and Social Science (No. 2022ESH006): Research on Localization of Community Correctional Social Work in China in the Context of High-Quality Development.

语种：英文

外文关键词：Community corrections; Effectiveness; Meta-analysis; Randomized controlled trials; Quasi-experimental study

摘要：Objectives Using meta-analysis to determine the effect size of the recidivism rate of participants in community correction programs that are conducted entirely in community settings. Methods Following the Preferred Reported Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA), 25 qualified studies contributed 35 independent effect sizes. Results Full participation in a program significantly reduced the recidivism rate. Participant age was a significant moderator of heterogeneity. Those aged over 18 have lower recidivism rates. Interventions that fully follow the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) design principles achieved similar results to those that did not. Recidivism rates increase more than 12 months after the program ends. Conclusions The effectiveness of community correctional programs varies depending on the participant's age. The RNR principles are not golden. The above factors should be carefully considered when conducting intervention design in the future. Results should be interpreted with caution due to the literature's high heterogeneity and low quality.