A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of judicial supervision interventions on recidivism of criminal offenders in Australia and New Zealand
Mr Michael Trood1, Dr Benjamin Spivak1, Professor James Ogloff1,2
1Centre for Forensic Behavioural Science, Swinburne University Of Technology, Alphington, Australia
2Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health (Forensicare), Fairfield, Australia
Over the last 25 years, Australian and New Zealand jurisdictions have introduced a range of problem-solving courts or court lists that aim to address criminal offending hand-in-hand with its precipitating social issues. Though these interventions vary by jurisdiction and population served, they commonly include an element of judicial supervision, defined as the use of multiple status review hearings by judicial officers to monitor offenders. This paper relays the results of the first-ever attempt to systematically review and synthesise the extant literature on Australian and New Zealand problem-solving courts and court lists that employed judicial supervision. A search strategy and eligibility criteria targeting interventions that compared treated individuals with non-exposed comparisons identified 20 studies, representing 16 independent investigations of 5 separate types of intervention, from over 12,000 extracted records. The results include pooled effects for recidivism outcomes and a moderator analysis examining associations between programmatic covariates and reductions in offending.
Michael is a PhD Candidate at Swinburne University’s Centre for Forensic Behavioral Science. He has over 4 years of experience in the social sector, most recently working with young offenders with multiple and complex needs. His research is centred on criminal justice interventions aimed at reducing offending.