unintended consequences of incarceration (from … & corrections workshop prepared papers...
TRANSCRIPT
National
Institu
teof Ju
stice
andO
fficeof
Justice
Program
s’C
orrectionsP
rogram
s
Sentencing
&C
orrectionsW
orkshop
Prep
aredP
apers
Feb
ruary
14-15,1996
Washington,
DC
If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov.
;37
TH
EU
NIN
TE
ND
ED
CO
NS
EQ
UE
NC
ES
OF
INC
AR
CE
RA
TIO
N*
by
To
dd
R.
Cle
ar
Ru
tgers
Univ
ers
ityN
IJR
esearc
hF
ello
w
Paper
pre
sen
ted
toth
eN
IJW
ork
shop
on
Co
rrectio
ns
Researc
hF
ebru
ary
14
-15
,1
996
*1w
ould
like
toth
ank
Dm
aR
ose
for
co
ntrib
utin
gth
ou
gh
tsan
dnarrativ
eto
this
paper
inits
earlie
rdrafts
.
UT
he
inte
nded
conse
quences
of
ap
riso
nsen
tence
are
twofo
ld:
oM
ora
lE
du
catio
n--A
“m
essa
ge”
issen
tto
the
offe
nder
an
d
Uto
the
public
-at-la
rge
con
firmin
gth
at
the
offe
nder’s
Uco
nd
uct
was
wro
ng
and
will
not
be
tole
rate
db
ysocie
ty;
oC
rime
pre
ven
tion
--Th
rou
gh
the
mechanism
so
fspecific
dete
rrence
(e.g
.,rehabilita
tion)
and
incap
acita
tion
,th
e
offe
nder
ism
ade
less
pro
ne/c
apable
of
com
mittin
g
Uad
ditio
nal
crim
es.
IIn
genera
l,th
en
,th
eo
bje
ct
of
incarc
era
tion
isto
pro
mo
tea
more
socia
llycohesiv
esocie
ty,
one
inw
hic
hm
emb
ersare
inclin
ed
toco
nfo
rmth
eir
co
nd
uct
toaccep
ted
sta
ndard
so
fle
gal
beh
avio
r.
Co
nfo
rmity
isin
duced
by
the
lesso
nof
the
pris
on
,exp
erie
nced
dir
ectly
or
indir
ectly
.O
ne
way
we
measu
rem
ora
lsocia
lcohesio
nis
by
countin
gth
ein
cid
ence
of
crim
es.
Un
inte
nd
ed
conse
quences
of
incarc
era
tion
occu
rw
hen
the
use
of
the
pris
on
underm
ines
the
ob
jectiv
eof
mora
lsocia
lcoh
esio
n.
We
would
stu
dy
un
inte
nd
ed
conse
quences
by
investig
atin
gw
ays
inw
hic
h
Uth
euse
of
the
pris
on
mig
ht
(1)se
nd
messa
ges,
eith
er
tooffe
nd
ers
Io
rto
the
pu
blic
,th
at
are
garb
led
as
torig
ht
and
wro
ng
;o
r(2)
tend
toin
cre
ase
the
pote
ntia
lfo
rcrim
inality
.T
he
pu
rpo
seof
this
paper
isto
identify
anum
ber
of
way
sin
wh
ich
impriso
nm
en
tm
ay
lead
tou
nin
ten
ded
conse
quences.
UA
nartif
actu
al
case
for
un
inte
nd
ed
conse
quences
Thro
ugh
the
fir
st
thre
e-q
uarte
rsof
this
cen
tury
,A
meric
a’s
incarc
era
tion
rate
varie
daro
un
da
sem
i-sta
ble
level
of
abou
t1
00
Upris
oners
per
10
0,0
00
citiz
en
s.
Begin
nin
gin
197
3,
the
natio
n’s
U1
U
pris
on
pra
ctic
echanged
from
sta
bility
tog
row
th,
and
aquarte
r-
centu
ryla
ter
incarc
era
tion
rate
sare
no
wov
er
40
0p
er
100
,00
0
citiz
en
s.
Fro
mth
epoin
tof
vie
wof
inte
nded
con
sequ
ences,
such
an
incre
ase
should
tran
sla
tein
toa
crim
econ
trol
boo
n.
Conserv
ativ
e
estim
ate
sare
that
the
av
era
ge
activ
eo
ffend
er
co
mm
itsabout
20
non-d
rug
felo
nie
sa
year
(Spelm
an
199
4).
Sw
ellin
gin
carc
era
tion
rate
sshould
have
reduced
crim
ein
the
com
mun
ityb
yla
rge
num
bers.
Fo
rin
sta
nce,
the
incre
ase
inpris
oners
by
ab
out
70
0,0
00
betw
een
1973
and
19
92
should
have
red
uced
the
incid
ence
of
crim
eby
up
to
14m
illion
offe
nses,
adju
stin
gfo
rpo
pula
tion
incre
ases.
But
in
1973,
the
Natio
nal
Crim
eS
urv
ey
estim
ate
dabout
36
millio
ncrim
es
were
com
mitte
d;
in1992’
the
tota
lhad
on
lydro
pped
to34
millio
n.
2
To
put
this
anom
aly
inp
ers
pectiv
e,
let
us
ho
ldgen
era
l
dete
rrence
consta
nt,
and
assu
me
that
every
incarc
era
ted
offe
nder,
ifre
leased
,w
ould
com
mit
20
crim
es
ay
ear,
som
eportio
nof
whic
h
wo
uld
be
vio
lent.
The
natio
n’s
“u
nd
erly
ing
”rate
of
crim
inality
co
uld
then
be
calc
ula
ted
as
the
actu
al
crim
es
co
mm
itted
plu
sth
e
crim
es
averte
db
yin
carc
era
tion.
In1
973
,w
hen
we
locked
up
200
,00
0
offe
nders
,w
ew
ere
dealin
gw
ithan
“u
nd
erly
ing
”le
vel
of
about
40
millio
ncrim
es
ayear.
In1
99
2,
with
alm
ost
900
,00
0p
rison
ers
,th
e
“u
nd
erly
ing
”crim
erate
had
gro
wn
too
ver
51m
illion
crim
es
per
‘T
he
Natio
nal
Crim
eS
urv
ey
rev
ised
the
way
it
co
llecte
dcrim
ed
ata
in1993,
mak
ing
cro
ss-y
ear
co
mp
ariso
ns
past
199
2in
ad
vis
able
.
2M
ost
of
the
dro
pw
asdue
tod
eclin
es
inp
ers
onal
theft
and
burg
lary
.A
fter
ris
ing
then
fallin
gsin
ce
197
3,
the
vio
lent
crim
era
tein
19
92
was
alm
ost
identic
al
to1
97
3.
2
year
(even
though
actu
al
crim
es
experie
nced
had
declin
ed
du
eto
mu
chh
igh
er
incarc
era
tion).
The
num
bers
are
more
dra
matic
for
vio
lent
crim
e.
In1
973
,w
e
wo
uld
estim
ate
an
°underly
ing”
vio
len
ce
lev
el
of
6.2
millio
ncrim
es
per
year.
By
19
92
,th
at
num
ber
had
beco
me
10
.1m
illion.
Acco
untin
g
for
popula
tion
gro
wth
,th
era
teof
“u
nd
erly
ing
”vio
len
tcrim
ehad
incre
ased
by
33%--s
om
uch
that
pro
bab
ilityof
actu
ally
exp
erie
ncin
g
avio
len
tstr
eet
crim
ew
asalm
ost
exactly
the
same
20
years
late
r,
ev
en
though
an
additio
nal
700,0
00
offe
nders
had
been
rem
oved
from
the
str
eets
.3
Thus,
the
enorm
ous
incre
ase
inim
priso
nm
ent
seem
sto
have
mask
ed
agro
win
gso
cia
lpro
pensity
for
vio
len
ce.
Wh
ataccou
nts
for
our
gro
win
gcrim
inal
pote
ntia
l?M
any
ob
serv
ers
wo
uld
respo
nd
that
socia
lp
rob
lem
ssu
ch
as
inequality
,fa
mily
bre
akd
ow
n,
econom
ic
alie
natio
nand
so
cia
ldis
org
aniz
atio
nhave
beco
me
wo
rsein
the
last
20years
,th
us
spaw
nin
gm
ore
vio
lence.
The
pic
ture
issu
ffic
iently
grim
that
we
no
whear
fran
kd
iscu
ssio
nth
at
it
has
help
ed
pro
du
ce
agenera
tion
of
so
-calle
d“superp
redato
rs.”
The
thesis
of
this
paper
isth
at
hig
hin
carc
era
tion
rate
sm
ay
als
obe
one
of
tho
se
forc
es
that
has
contrib
ute
dto
hig
her
rate
sof
underly
ing
crim
inal
vio
lence.
It
isarg
ued
that
incarc
era
tion
has
un
inte
nded
conse
quences
intw
ow
ays.
The
pro
bability
of
bein
ga
vic
timo
fany
type
of
crim
ehas
dro
pp
ed
about
30%,
accord
ing
toth
eN
CS
.A
dd
ing
the
“averte
dcrim
es”
of
the
incarc
era
ted
offe
nd
ers
toth
at
figure
resu
ltsin
an
“u
nd
erly
ing
”crim
era
tein
1992
about
equal
toth
at
in19
73
.
3
oF
irst,
lock
ing
apers
on
up
dis
rupts
anum
ber
of
syste
ms
and
theàe
dis
ruptio
ns
mig
ht
pla
usib
ly
co
ntrib
ute
tohig
her
levels
of
crim
e;
and
oS
eco
nd
,th
eex
trao
rdin
ary
gro
wth
inin
carc
era
tion,
has
dam
aged
hum
anand
socia
lcap
ital
with
inalre
ady
dis
rupte
dand
dis
advan
tag
ed
com
munitie
s.
Thus,
this
paper
arg
ues
that
incarc
era
tion
,in
tended
as
aw
ay
top
roduce
mora
lsocia
lcohesio
n,
als
oco
nta
ins
the
seeds
of
the
exact
opposite
outc
om
e.
I.C
rime
and
syste
ms
Th
ou
gh
the
accu
mu
latio
nof
ad
ditio
nal
pris
oners
has
been
gra
dual,
the
net
impact
of
this
pro
foun
dshif
tin
the
co
llectiv
e
ex
perie
nce
of
incarc
era
tion
isim
po
rtan
tto
unders
tan
d.
Gro
wth
in
impriso
nm
en
thas
dis
pro
po
rtion
ate
lyaffe
cte
dth
epoor
and
people
of
colo
r.A
ppro
xim
ate
ly7%
of
all
Afric
an-A
meric
an
male
sag
ed
20-5
0
are
curre
ntly
inp
riso
n(B
JSl9
95
).T
his
sta
tistic
repre
sents
a
dra
stic
loss
inm
ale
mem
bersh
ipin
these
com
mu
nitie
s.A
frican-
Am
eric
an
com
munitie
shave
suffe
red
war-le
vel
casualtie
sin
pare
ntin
g-a
ge
male
sdurin
gth
ein
cre
ase
inim
priso
nm
ent
sin
ce
197
3,
when
on
ly1%
of
this
gro
up
was
incarc
era
ted
.
One
way
tose
eth
epote
ntia
lfo
run
inte
nd
ed
conse
qu
ences
of
impriso
nm
en
tis
tov
iew
crim
eand
punish
ment
from
the
pers
pectiv
e
of
a“sy
stem
s”m
od
el,
inw
hic
hcrim
eis
seen
as
em
bed
ded
invario
us
inte
rpers
onal,
fam
ily,
eco
no
mic
,and
politic
al
syste
ms.
This
appro
ach
help
sex
pla
inhow
rem
ov
ing
larg
en
um
bers
of
yo
ung
male
s
from
the
com
munity
serio
usly
dis
rup
tsth
esy
stem
son
wh
ich
4
neig
hborh
oods
rely
.T
he
resu
ltis
an
incre
ase
inth
eun
derly
ing
lev
el
of
crim
e.
The
syste
ms
mo
del
mak
esth
earg
um
en
tth
at
crim
eis
asocia
l
ev
en
to
ccu
rring
with
ina
socia
lcon
text.
Larg
enu
mb
ers
of
ind
ivid
uals
can
no
tbe
rem
oved
from
com
munitie
sw
itho
ut
affe
ctin
g
the
str
uctu
ral
conditio
ns
whic
hare
conduciv
eto
crim
e.
While
com
munitie
sm
aybe
able
tosusta
insm
all
losses
inre
sid
ents
(due
toboth1
1natu
ral”
events
such
as
resid
entia
lm
obility
an
d
11
unnatu
raP
events
such
as
incarc
era
tion)
with
out
sig
nific
an
t
fallo
ut,
rem
ov
ing
resid
en
tspast
acerta
inth
resh
old
may
begin
to
have
impact
on
larg
er
so
cia
lrela
tions.
Belo
ware
liste
dw
ays
in
whic
hth
ese
effects
mig
ht
be
expecte
dto
occu
r.W
hile
one
or
anoth
er
of
these
facto
rsb
yits
elf
may
seemtr
ivia
lin
its
rela
tionship
tocrim
e,
their
co
mb
ined
effects
may
po
ten
tially
be
dev
asta
ting.
The
purp
ose
of
this
paper
isnot
tob
uild
ath
eo
ryof
such
rela
tionship
s.
Rath
er
it
isto
sho
wh
ow
dis
ruptin
ga
larg
e
nu
mb
er
of
syste
ms
thro
ugh
incarc
era
ting
co
nseq
uen
tial
po
rtion
so
f
acom
mu
nity
’spopula
tion
can
pro
mo
te,
rath
er
than
redu
ce,
crim
e.
Inte
rpers
on
al
crim
inal
syste
ms
Crim
eis
ofte
na
gro
up
ph
en
om
en
on
(see
Reis
s19
88)
.Y
oung
male
sco
mm
itm
uch
of
their
str
eet-
level
acq
uis
itional
crim
ein
gro
up
s--mu
gg
ing
s,burg
larie
s,
robberie
san
dso
forth
.N
early
all
of
dru
gcrim
e,
from
sale
sto
consu
mptio
n,
isals
oa
gro
up
activ
ity.
4
This
rais
es
the
qu
estio
nof
what
happens
wh
enth
ecrim
inal
justic
e
‘W
hile
most
citiz
en
ssta
nd
infe
ar
of
solita
ry
offe
nd
ers
such
as
seria
lm
urd
ere
rso
rrapis
ts,
these
crim
es
are
co
mpara
tively
rare
.
S
syste
mre
moves
one
mem
ber
of
acrim
inal
gro
up
.It
may
ofte
nbe
that
the
gro
up
contin
ues
itscrim
inal
activ
ityas
befo
re.
Th
egro
up
may
ev
en
recru
ita
rep
lacem
en
tm
ember
inord
er
tocarry
out
crim
inal
functio
ns
at
co
ntin
uin
gle
vels
.F
or
every
gro
up
that
rep
laces
rem
ov
ed
mem
bers,
little
or
no
crim
ep
rev
en
tion
isachie
ved
by
the
incarc
era
tion
of
the
initia
lm
ember.
This
isalm
ost
certa
inly
the
case
with
dru
g-re
late
dcrim
e.
Dru
gd
eman
dre
main
sunaffe
cte
db
yre
mov
al
of
dru
goffe
nders
,and
the
crim
inal
actio
ns
of
the
gro
up
go
on
larg
ely
unin
terru
pte
d.
This
may
be
wo
rseth
an
am
ere
wash
,how
ever.
Implic
itw
ithin
the
rep
lacem
en
tid
ea
is“re
cru
itmen
t:”th
at
ay
oung
man
oth
erw
ise
at
the
marg
inof
crim
inal
gro
ups
becom
es
more
intim
ate
lyassocia
ted
with
them
.In
the
case
of
dru
gcrim
e,
for
ex
am
ple
,a
youn
gm
ale
who
oth
erw
ise
mig
ht
have
been
inschool
or
insearc
ho
fle
gal
wo
rkis
inste
ad
recru
ited
into
the
dru
gtra
de.
This
male
,w
ho
mig
ht
have
left
young
adulth
ood
with
ou
tclo
se
associa
tion
with
crim
egro
up
s,
inste
ad
becom
es
initia
ted
into
crim
inal
ente
rpris
e--w
ithlife
lon
g
imp
licatio
ns.
The
resu
ltsof
crim
inal
rep
lacem
ent
may
som
etim
es
inclu
de
augm
enta
tion
of
acrim
inal
care
er.
Fam
ilial
syste
ms
It
isw
ell
esta
blis
hed
that
child
ren
su
ffer
wh
enp
are
nts
are
rem
oved
from
the
hom
e.W
hat
isle
ss
cle
ar
isth
enatu
reand
exte
nt
of
dis
ruptio
nth
at
follo
ws
an
incarc
era
tion.
Stu
die
sof
this
pro
ble
mhave
tended
tofo
cu
so
nm
oth
ers
(Gab
el
197
2),
but
there
have
als
obeen
afew
atte
mp
tsto
do
cum
en
tth
eim
pacts
of
imp
risonm
ent
of
fath
ers
(Kin
g1993;
Lo
wste
in198
6).
Ifth
ela
tter
6
effe
cts
are
pote
nt,
the
ripp
leeffe
cts
of
afa
ther’s
incarc
era
tion
could
be
sig
nif
icant.
It
mig
ht
be
arg
ued
that
rem
oval
of
acrim
inally
activ
efa
ther
imp
rov
es
the
en
viro
nm
en
tof
the
rem
ain
ing
sons.
This
isnot
cle
ar
from
the
data
.O
ne
stu
dy
(Sm
ithand
Cle
ar
199
5)
of
am
ale
,ja
il
inta
ke
sam
ple
finds
pre
limin
ary
evid
en
ce
for
the
exis
ten
ce
of
substa
ntia
lpositiv
epare
ntin
gprio
rto
incarc
era
tion
.A
fter
the
male
’sim
priso
nm
ent,
the
responses
of
the
jaile
din
mate
’sfa
mily
to
his
incarc
era
tion
inclu
de:
ad
dre
ss
chang
es
inw
hic
hth
ere
main
ing
fam
ilym
oved
into
more
cra
mp
ed
quarte
rsand
new
scho
ol
dis
tric
ts,
fam
ilyd
isru
ptio
nin
clu
din
gth
earriv
al
of
new
male
role
sin
toth
e
fam
ilyre
pla
cin
gth
ein
mate
,re
duced
time
for
mate
rnal
pare
ntin
g
due
tota
kin
gsecondary
em
plo
ym
en
t,and
soo
n.
Ch
ildre
n’s
inte
rnaliz
atio
nof
socia
ln
orm
sm
ayals
obe
dis
rup
ted
by
hig
hle
vels
of
incarc
era
tion
.C
hang
es
inpare
nta
l
wo
rkin
gconditio
ns
and
fam
ilycirc
um
sta
nces
are
know
nto
affe
ct
child
ren’s
socia
ladju
stm
ent
and
norm
transm
issio
nacro
ss
gen
era
tion
s(P
arc
el
and
Men
aghan
199
3).
Ad
ult
crim
eis
als
o
co
nn
ecte
db
oth
tochild
hood
ex
perie
nce
an
dto
ch
an
ges
inad
ult
socia
lb
on
ds
(Lau
band
Sam
pso
n1
99
3).
School
su
ccess
isals
olin
ked
tofa
mily
stru
ctu
re,
whic
hhas
effe
ct
ind
ep
en
den
tof
so
cia
lcla
ss
inim
po
verish
ed
fam
ilies
and
pare
ntin
gsty
le(V
acha
and
McL
augh
lin
1992)
.N
on
eof
these
ch
an
ges
will
by
itself
“cause
”delin
quen
cy,
bu
teach
isa
fam
ilydis
ruptio
n,
and
such
dis
rup
tion
sare
asso
cia
ted
with
earlie
rand
more
activ
ed
elin
qu
ent
care
ers
.
7
The
incarc
era
tion
of
larg
enum
bers
of
pare
nt-a
ge
male
sals
o
restr
icts
the
num
ber
of
male
partn
ers
av
aila
ble
with
inth
e
com
mu
nity
.T
his
mean
sth
at
mo
thers
find
more
com
petitio
nfo
r
partn
ers
and
pare
nts
for
their
ch
ildre
n.
Inth
econ
tex
to
fm
ore
co
mp
etitiv
epare
nta
lsitu
atio
ns,
mo
thers
may
feel
relu
cta
nt
toen
d
rela
tionship
sth
at
are
un
su
itab
lefo
rchild
ren
partly
because
pro
sp
ects
for
asu
itab
lere
pla
cem
en
tare
perc
eiv
ed
as
dim
.It
is
kn
ow
nth
at
ab
usin
gre
latio
nship
sw
ithp
are
nts
contrib
ute
tola
ter
delin
quency
amo
ng
the
child
ren
su
fferin
gsu
ch
abu
se(W
idom199
4).
There
fore
,w
hile
the
comm
onassu
mp
tion
isth
at
rem
ov
ing
crim
inally
-activ
em
enfro
mth
eh
om
efo
ste
rsa
safe
renv
iron
men
t,it
may
have
co
un
ter-in
tuitiv
eeffe
cts
due
toan
incre
ased
ris
ko
f
delin
quency
among
the
fath
erle
ss
ch
ildre
n.
Fo
rexam
ple
,le
tu
ssa
y
that
afa
ther’s
imp
rison
men
tin
cre
ases
his
so
n’s
delin
qu
en
cy
by
25%.
Afa
ther
of
fou
rb
oy
sw
ill,th
rou
gh
his
incarc
era
tion
,p
rod
uce
the
eq
uiv
ale
nt
of
one
new
delin
quent.
The
gre
ate
rpro
bab
ilities
of
appre
hensio
nand
resultin
gcrim
eam
plific
atio
no
fth
e“n
ew
delin
qu
en
t’s”
ch
ildre
nillu
str
ate
the
kin
dof
genera
tional
patte
rn
that
may
occu
r.
Eco
no
mic
sYste
ms
Fam
ilym
embers
earn
ing
illeg
al
mon
eystill
contrib
ute
toth
e
welfa
reof
their
fam
ilIes.
Prio
rto
incarc
era
tion
,m
ost
pris
oners
are
an
econom
icre
so
urc
eto
their
neig
hb
orh
oo
ds
and
imm
edia
te
fam
ilies.
Sulliv
an
(19
89
)estim
ate
sth
at
inim
po
veris
hed
neig
hborh
oods,
aw
ork
-age
male
mig
ht
genera
teabo
ut
$12,0
00
in
econom
icactiv
ityin
agiv
en
year--m
on
ey
that
tran
sla
tes
into
8
purc
hases
at
the
local
deli,
ch
ildsuppo
rt,and
sofo
rth.
This
econom
icvalu
eis
genera
ted
ina
varie
tyof
endeavors
,in
clu
din
g
off-th
e-b
ooks
work
,in
term
itten
tillicit
dru
gtra
de,
welfa
re,
an
d
part-tim
eem
plo
ym
ent.
On
cearre
ste
dand
incarc
era
ted,
this
econom
ic
valu
eis
transfo
rmed
and
tran
sfe
rred
.It
istra
nsfo
rmed
into
penal
capita
l--th
edem
and
for
asala
ried
corre
ctio
nal
em
plo
yee
top
rov
ide
secu
rity.
It
als
ois
tran
sfe
rred
toth
elo
cality
of
the
pris
on
,
wh
ere
the
penal
syste
m’s
em
plo
yees
resid
eand
live.
Thus,
inth
e
case
of
New
York
,a
resid
ent
of
Bedfo
rd-S
tuy
vesant,
arre
ste
dan
d
convic
ted,
istra
nsfo
rmed
from
a$12,0
00
resou
rce
inh
isco
mm
unity
toa
$30,0
00
reso
urc
ein
asle
ep
y,
upsta
tevilla
ge.
Th
isty
pe
of
transfer
of
wealth
ap
plie
sto
as
man
yas
70%of
New
Yo
rkS
tate
’s
69
,000
inm
ate
s(din
es
1992)
What
happens
toa
com
munity
that
experie
nces
aste
ad
ygro
wth
inth
ese
tran
sfe
rsof
wealth
?E
co
nom
ichard
ship
isone
of
the
stro
ng
est
geogra
phic
pre
dic
tors
of
crim
erate
s.
The
socia
lly
imb
edded
natu
reof
crim
eand
unem
plo
ym
en
tsug
gests
that
tho
se
com
munitie
ssu
fferin
gdepriv
atio
nex
perie
nce
gre
ate
rcrim
inal
inv
olv
em
en
tam
on
gre
sid
en
ts(H
agan
1993)
.T
here
fore
,it
is
reasonable
toassu
me
that
acom
munity
ex
perie
ncin
geconom
iclo
ss
as
aresu
ltof
incarc
era
tion
will
ex
perie
nce
an
incre
ase
incrim
e
(Wilso
n1987)
Impriso
nm
ent
not
on
lyhas
an
econom
iceffe
ct
on
the
com
munity
that
was
hom
eto
the
pris
oner,
it
als
oaffe
cts
the
pris
oner
dir
ectly
.G
rogger
(1995)
dem
onstra
ted
that
mere
lybein
garre
ste
d
has
ashort-te
rm,
negativ
eim
pact
on
earn
ing
s,
while
Fre
em
an
(19
92)
9
has
show
nth
at
su
fferin
ga
co
nv
ictio
nand
impriso
nm
ent
has
a
perm
anent
imp
act
on
earn
ing
pote
ntia
l.E
xp
erie
nce
with
the
crim
inal
justic
esy
stem
contrib
ute
sto
the
very
inequ
ality
ineconom
icm
eans
that
pro
mo
tes
str
eet
crim
ein
the
fir
st
pla
ce
(Bra
ithw
aite
19
79)
Thus
the
crim
inal
justic
esy
stem
leaves
econ
om
icscars
on
its
clie
nts
lon
gafte
rits
form
al
involv
em
ent
inth
eir
lives
has
ended
.
Politic
al
syste
ms
Every
min
ority
child
can
tell
sto
rie
so
fra
cis
min
the
crim
inal
justic
esy
stem
,and
the
valid
atio
no
fth
ese
tale
sis
ap
pare
nt
toth
eey
e.
One-th
irdof
Afric
an
-Am
eric
an
male
sin
their
twen
ties
are
under
som
efo
rmo
ffo
rmal
justic
esy
stem
contro
l;in
man
ycitie
s,
half
of
this
gro
up
are
su
bje
cts
of
the
syste
m(M
auer
1995).
The
ov
erw
helm
ing
pre
sen
ce
of
Am
eric
an
crim
inal
justic
ein
these
com
munitie
sg
oes
alo
ng
way
tod
efin
ing
the
meanin
gof
the
sta
tefo
rth
isse
gm
ent
of
socie
ty.
The
sta
teis
mo
stlik
ely
tobe
encounte
red
as
acoerc
ive
ag
en
tof
con
trol
rath
er
than
a“fa
ir”
ag
en
tof
justic
e,
and
when
this
istru
epeople
are
less
likely
to
confo
rmth
eir
beh
av
ior
toth
ere
quire
men
tsof
the
law
(Tyle
r19
94).
Incom
munitie
sw
ithh
igh
rate
sof
incarc
era
tion
,belie
fs
about
the
sta
tem
aybe
co
nte
ntio
us.
InP
hila
delp
hia
,fo
rex
am
ple
,a
small
cad
reof
po
lice
was
fou
nd
tohave
been
pla
ntin
gev
iden
ce
an
d
fals
ifyin
gte
stim
ony
toachie
ve
co
nv
ictio
ns.
Inan
analy
sis
of
100
arrests
by
this
sm
all
cre
w,
55w
ere
dete
rmin
ed
tobe
ob
tain
ed
by
fals
em
eans.
Dozens
of
incarc
era
ted
offe
nders
had
their
co
nv
ictio
ns
overtu
rned
and
were
rele
ased
from
pris
on,
inclu
din
ga
gra
ndm
oth
er
whose
co
nv
ictio
nw
asobta
ined
thro
ugh
pla
nte
ddru
gs
as
aw
ayto
10
teach
her
dru
g-d
ealin
gg
ran
dso
n“a
lesson.”
Inth
ela
st
fewyears
,
this
cre
whas
been
resp
on
sib
lefo
ro
ver
10,0
00
arrests
.O
ne
can
imagin
eth
eco
llectiv
eim
pre
ssio
nof
vic
tims
of
the
perh
aps
5,0
00
fals
ifie
darrests
,and
the
impre
ssio
ns
of
their
child
ren,
sib
ling
s,
sp
ou
ses,
and
in-la
ws.
The
effe
ct
of
am
alfe
asance
of
the
law
with
in
these
com
munitie
sis
geo
metric
.T
his
isone
of
the
reason
sw
hy
it
wo
uld
surp
rise
fewof
us
tole
arn
that
man
yin
ner-c
ityyo
un
gpeo
ple
defin
eth
ep
ow
er
of
the
sta
teas
an
em
esis
tobe
av
oid
ed
rath
er
than
an
ally
tobe
cu
ltivate
d.
There
isanoth
er
lev
el
at
whic
hth
isnegativ
epo
litical
impact
may
op
era
te:
itm
ayre
du
ce
dete
rrence.
Fin
ck
en
auer’s
(198
2)
stu
dy
of
Rah
way
pris
on’s
“S
care
dS
traig
ht”
pro
gra
mfo
und
that
those
expose
dto
the
hars
h,
accusato
ryta
un
ting
by
the
lifers
actu
ally
had
more
delin
qu
en
cy
than
acom
pariso
ng
roup
no
tex
po
sed
toth
e
pro
gra
m.
Th
issuggests
that
the
bru
taliz
ing
effects
of
pris
on
experie
nces
may
not
on
lyfail
todete
r,th
ey
may
actu
ally
inure
the
pers
on
from
fear
of
pris
on
’sconsequences.
Sta
ted
inanoth
er
way
,p
art
of
the
dete
rren
tp
ow
er
of
the
pris
on
may
be
the
my
stery
that
surro
unds
it.
On
ceexp
erie
nced
,
pris
on,
no
matte
rhow
hars
h,
istra
nsfo
rmed
from
an
aw
ful
myste
ry
toa
real-
life
ex
perie
nce
that
can
be
su
ffere
dand
su
rviv
ed
.H
igh
recid
ivis
mra
tes
thro
ughout
the
years
are
co
nsis
tent
with
the
idea
that
pris
on
experie
nces
fail
todete
r.F
ear
of
pris
on
(especia
lly
amo
ng
the
mid
dle
cla
ss
who
have
not
ex
perie
nced
it)m
ayb
ea
real
dete
rren
to
nly
wh
enit
isan
un
acq
uain
ted
fear.
11
Inm
ino
rityco
mm
un
ities,
pris
on
isa
part
of
life.
Abla
ck
10
year-o
ldis
likely
tohave
at
least
one
(and
likely
mo
re)ex-c
ons
amo
ng
his
fath
ers
,u
ncle
s,
bro
thers
,and
neig
hbors
.T
he
lesso
nis
that
pris
on
isnot
aweso
me,
but
issurv
ivab
le.
Wid
esp
read
use
of
the
pris
on
ista
nta
mo
un
tto
aw
idespre
ad
reassu
ran
ce
that
pris
on
is
“n
orm
al.”
Thus,
the
politic
sof
impriso
nm
en
tm
aybe
acom
bin
atio
n
of
incre
asin
gre
sentm
ent
and
decre
asin
gm
arg
inal
gain
.
II.
Hum
anand
so
cia
lcapita
l
Effe
ctiv
esocia
lo
rgan
izatio
nrelie
sup
on
su
ffic
ien
tsu
pplie
s
of
hum
anand
so
cia
lcapita
l.T
hus,
what
crim
inolo
gis
tsth
ink
of
as
mo
ral
socia
lcohesio
nis
als
orelia
nt
upon
hum
an/s
ocia
lcapita
l.
These
constru
cts
,se
en
as
essen
tial
tov
iab
leco
mm
un
ity,
can
als
o
be
seen
as
affe
cte
db
yra
tes
of
incarc
era
tion.
Hum
ancapita
lre
fers
toth
ehum
anskills
and
reso
urc
es
ind
ivid
uals
need
tofu
nctio
neffe
ctiv
ely
,su
ch
as
read
ing
,w
riting,
and
reasonin
gability
.S
ocia
lcapita
lrefers
toth
eso
cia
lskills
and
reso
urc
es
need
ed
toaffe
ct
positiv
ech
an
ge
incom
munity
life.
Socia
lcapita
lis
the
essence
of
socia
lco
ntro
lfo
rit
isth
very
forc
ecolle
ctiv
es
dra
wupon
toen
forc
eord
er.
Socia
lcapita
l,
how
ev
er,
require
ssu
ffic
ien
tam
ounts
of
hum
ancap
ital,
soth
etw
o
concepts
are
inextric
ably
linked.
For
insta
nce,
any
type
of
colle
ctiv
eactio
nre
quire
sa
certa
inam
ou
nt
of
know
ledge
with
regard
toorg
aniz
ing
tactic
sand
su
ffic
ien
tedu
catio
nto
deal
with
ou
tsid
ers
.C
om
munitie
sd
efic
ien
tin
hum
ancap
ital
are
unable
to
org
an
ize
effe
ctiv
ely
,and
are
un
ab
leto
take
adv
an
tage
of
reso
urc
es
availa
ble
from
socie
tyat
larg
e.12
The
pla
ce
of
resid
en
ce
isa
sourc
eof
info
rmal
netw
ork
so
f
peo
ple
who
(1)
pro
vid
eim
po
rtan
tpro
ducts
and
serv
ices
(such
as
child
care
),and
(2)
can
alte
rlif
echances
with
job
referrals
,
politic
al
connectio
ns
(or,
of
co
urs
e,
crim
inal
co
nta
cts
).W
hile
som
etim
es
this
info
rmal
mark
etp
lace
opera
tes
thro
ugh
mo
neta
ry
ex
ch
ange,
more
ofte
nit
opera
tes
thro
ugh
barte
rw
here
recip
rocity
isth
ecurre
ncy
of
exchange
(Lo
gan
and
Molo
tch,
19
87
).T
his
syste
m
isesp
ecia
llyim
po
rtan
tfo
rth
epoor
who
rely
mo
reup
on
each
oth
er
for
these
types
of
reso
urc
es
sin
ce
poor
people
are
less
mo
bile
than
the
well-to
-do
(Wellm
an
,1979).
Inte
rpers
on
al
su
ppo
rtam
on
gpoor
peo
ple
ispartic
ula
rly
dam
aged
when
their
neig
hborh
oo
dis
dis
rup
ted
(Logan
and
Molo
tch,
1987).
Stro
ng
neig
hborh
oods
are
tho
se
whic
hare
ab
leto
meet
the
needs
of
resid
ents
.N
ot
on
lyare
they
the
focal
poin
tin
wh
ich
daily
needs
are
met,
they
are
en
viro
nm
ents
inw
hic
hth
ere
isan
availa
bility
of
info
rmal
su
pp
ort
netw
ork
s.
Stro
ng
neig
hbo
rho
ods
pro
vid
ea
sen
se
of
physic
al
and
psy
ch
icsecurity
,in
add
ition
toa
sen
se
of
identity
,and
they
pro
vid
ebenefits
tore
sid
en
tsbase
d
upon
aconcentra
tion
of
dem
and
whic
ho
ften
isuniq
ue
toth
at
are
a
(Logan
and
Molo
tch,
1987;
Sto
eck
er,
19
94).
By
co
ntra
st,
dis
rup
ted
neig
hborh
oods
hav
ed
iffic
ulty
iden
tifyin
gand
cla
imin
gth
eir
needs.
Th
em
ost
dis
org
aniz
ed
com
munitie
sneed
the
most
outs
ide
assis
tance,
yet
ofte
nth
ey
are
not
the
com
munitie
sw
hic
hare
the
recip
ien
tso
fth
isassis
tance.
Fo
rin
sta
nce,
Milo
fsk
y(1
988)
sho
ws
that
resourc
eallo
catio
noccurs
from
the
sta
teto
the
com
munity
as
afu
nctio
nof
av
arie
tyo
f
13
facto
rs.
Becau
seth
eg
ov
ern
men
tis
no
tequip
ped
for
actu
al
dis
trib
utio
nof
fun
ds
toin
div
idu
als
,a
prim
ary
facto
ris
the
ability
of
the
sta
teto
identify
agro
up
who
can
dis
trib
ute
the
money
toin
div
idu
als
inth
ecom
mu
nity
.T
he
dis
trib
utio
no
f
resou
rces
req
uire
san
esta
blis
hed
and
identif
iab
leo
rgan
izatio
n
rep
resentin
gth
ecom
munity
.T
he
mo
stsevere
lydis
org
an
ized
com
munitie
so
ften
suffe
rfro
ma
paucity
of
org
aniz
atio
ns
and
in
their
stru
gg
leto
receiv
eg
ov
ern
men
tassis
tance,
do
not
have
the
suffic
ient
hu
man
cap
ital
or
socia
lcapita
lto
cre
atë
org
aniz
atio
n
needed
too
bta
inand
dis
trib
ute
money
.In
this
way
,th
em
ost
dis
ad
van
tag
ed
com
munitie
sre
main
the
most
dis
advanta
ged.
It
iscle
ar
that
crim
eis
adis
ruptin
gfo
rce
inn
eig
hb
orh
ood
s,
and
the
ab
sen
ce
of
crim
ehelp
sm
ake
neig
hborh
oo
ds
stro
ng
er.
Yet
it
isals
ocle
ar
that
ahig
hle
vel
of
incarc
era
tion
may
affe
ct
all
the
asp
ects
of
com
munity
that
pre
vent
crim
eand
stre
ngth
en
com
mu
nitie
s.
Fir
st
and
fore
most,
ex
trem
eim
priso
nm
en
tre
moves
apo
rtion
of
resid
ents
.In
dis
advanta
ged
com
munitie
salre
ady
stra
inin
gfro
mth
e
effe
cts
of
po
verty
and
oth
er
desta
biliz
ing
con
ditio
ns,
the
abse
nce
of
able
-bodie
dm
ale
sin
fluences
the
socia
lo
rganiz
atio
no
fth
e
co
mm
unity
.In
carc
era
tion
rem
oves
wag
eearn
ers
,day
care
pro
vid
ers
,
eld
er
care
-giv
ers
.T
heir
tasks,
how
ever,
rem
ain
.T
here
are
few
er
peo
ple
tow
atc
hth
echild
ren
inte
rms
of
care
and
gu
ard
iansh
ip,
an
d
there
are
few
er
pare
nta
lre
sourc
es
for
vario
us
form
sof
fam
ily
socia
lcap
ital
usefu
lin
facilita
ting
po
sitiv
ech
ildo
utc
om
es
(Parc
el
and
Men
ag
han
,1994).
Fillin
gth
ese
vo
ids
cre
ate
sa
str
ain
.
14
Incarceratio
ndis
rupts
pers
on
al
netw
ork
sof
associa
tion
sth
at
are
the
basis
for
so
cia
lorg
aniz
atio
n.
Indiv
idu
als
are
dif
feren
tly
affe
cte
db
yth
isd
isru
ptio
n,
dependin
gu
pon
their
pla
ce
inth
e
netw
ork
rela
tive
toth
ein
carc
era
ted
indiv
idual.
Imm
ed
iate
fam
ily
mem
bers
are
more
heavily
affe
cte
db
ya
mem
ber
goin
gto
pris
on
than
are
cousin
sw
ho
intu
rnare
affe
cte
ddif
ferently
than
frien
ds.
The
spir
allin
gof
affects
isim
po
rtan
tto
reco
gniz
eb
ecause
it
iso
nly
thro
ug
hex
am
inin
gth
em
ultip
licativ
eim
pact
of
incarc
era
tion
that
we
can
obta
ina
accura
tep
ictu
reof
itseffe
ct
on
com
munity
life.
Hig
hra
tes
of
incarc
era
tion
may
als
oin
cre
ase
aco
mm
un
ity’s
sen
se
of
alie
natio
nfro
mso
cie
ty-a
t-larg
e.
Sk
og
an
’s(1
990)
researc
h
indic
ate
sth
at
indiv
iduals
who
are
un
able
tole
av
ean
undesira
ble
neig
hborh
ood
ofte
nw
ithdra
w.
The
imp
licatio
ns
of
this
researc
hare
that
this
kin
dof
anonym
itydecre
ases
inte
gra
tion
and
incre
ases
socia
ldis
org
aniz
atio
n.
When
the
com
mun
ityas
aw
hole
becom
es
more
alie
nate
d,
there
isle
ss
incen
tive
tostr
ive
for
main
stream
go
als
,
there
isgre
ate
rm
ala
ise
and
depre
ssio
n,
and
redu
ced
feelin
gs
of
em
po
werm
en
t.P
eo
ple
need
tohave
the
skills
toco
me
tog
eth
er,
bu
t
just
as
importa
nt,
they
need
tofe
el
that
they
are
capab
leof
affe
ctin
gso
me
type
of
contro
l.T
his
require
sa
feelin
gof
com
munity
and
emp
ow
ermen
tw
hic
halie
natio
n(in
tern
ally
and
from
ex
tern
al
wo
rld)
ravages.
Socia
lcap
ital
is,
the
forc
ebehin
dso
cia
lcontro
l,is
thus
a
po
tentia
lv
ictim
of
hig
hconcentra
tions
of
incarc
era
tion
.R
emovin
g
som
any
people
from
acom
munity
can
dis
rupts
netw
ork
san
dre
mo
ve
vita
lre
sourc
es
from
the
com
munity
.
15
III.
Conclu
sion
This
paper
arg
ues
that
the
unp
receden
ted
incre
ases
in
incarc
era
tion
sin
ce
1973
may
have
conta
ined
the
seeds
of
incre
ases
incrim
e.
Th
ishas
hap
pen
ed
becau
sehig
hle
vels
of
incarc
era
tion
,
concen
trate
dw
ithin
certa
incom
munitie
s,in
teract
with
so
cio
po
litical
and
econom
icsy
stem
sin
way
sth
at
pro
mote
crim
ean
d
dam
age
hu
man
and
socia
lcap
ital.
The
result
isa
co
nceiv
able
red
uctio
nin
mora
lso
cia
lco
hesio
n.
The
lev
el
of
co
un
ter-p
rod
uctiv
eness
may
actu
ally
be
hig
h
en
ou
gh
that
it
larg
ely
can
cels
out
the
gain
incrim
epre
ventio
n
asso
cia
ted
with
impriso
nm
ent.
Ifth
isis
so,
curre
nt
po
licy
-makin
g
can
on
lyexacerb
ate
the
very
forc
es
it
isdesig
ned
toera
dic
ate
.
Perh
ap
sth
ese
effe
cts
are
sostro
ng
that
the
gro
win
gevid
ence
(Blu
mste
in,
1995)
young
people
today
are
more
vio
len
tand
more
crim
inal--th
eso-c
alle
d“su
perp
red
ato
rs’--c
an
be
partly
ex
pla
ined
by
the
thesis
that
hig
hin
carc
era
tion
rate
shav
econtrib
ute
dto
a
quality
of
life
for
man
yof
them
that
pro
mote
sgre
ate
ran
ti-socia
l
responses.
16
— — — —
X t-4 L- Q 0 1) W W WH- 9) 0 0 9) H- 9) I- 9) H- H t- H ‘-
0 D --0 CD CD 9) 9) (-Q CD CD 0 CD H- S i-
ft - - H S CD 9) ft Cl) I-’CD C4- tICD Q’tJ- flct C- 9)CD $ti- QCDt9) CD QCD t:-43 ‘tiift 0(D Mc ‘IH- 9)0 rq 05 i 59) 1H-i -. 9) 0 dCDCDw’-< OCDX H-’i HF—Sq I--CD0 CDi CDC4 1- (DCJ) CDCD CD9) H- CDO riP-’ 9)H-0- Li-ct9) CD- I--O S rtft 50 CDrt 0-9) 5zj Y’[-h -- U)
CDH-I1 0 H-ft H-t- DH- t’iC- H-(D F’- $1i O(D CD H- Oft ts))- tJQ OOs 0H- H- 500 Hi cVCD 0ft ft <I-• 5 9) iC iCD ‘‘<09) ftCD CD• [0 0HiJ1 9)i 0 FjHi 9)CD9) t,$)O CD- rt (.Q -•-CD — 9)i HCD• 0’< ‘-<--. iMi i••[ i[1 00 rtCD ZH
H Cl)H --- H-I—’. 0 - [- SH H-I-’ ft H-rt9) O H- Oft iq CD[-li) CDH 9) C) 9)xjtTi CDo 1(D Z’Ci ft 9)F i9) CD H- 00
0— CDo 09) [j9) t’< 0—. CD(Q 5 CD -0 iCDbP ftUl xicx tJ0 - SQ rtw CD 9)—J.H CD CD F->c CD rt CDH-’-.D CD- 9)O’i H-- ‘— —. W tEiCD ‘t- CJ H
5 5.—’ CDLI <CD OH (DCD C) - C!) CD—.H-(X) H- CD0I1 0CD H---- frh’..O 5ft[-3 9)’-< Q —-. oct HN’—” Hi H CD59) H--0 5CDI- Q ‘-0 H-5--’ CDH-0---- F—s- H 9) -Q0 ZH9) Hh H-’- II b 9)tflkD t- ‘-<Ui OCD 5iH CD Z.D --ft CD-.-)ftC) ‘.oH- CDCD (D .-‘.o H-CD 0— H-CDcto *— (Do H- ‘.oH-0 ‘-00 CD5 OCD WI- W S ‘tctC) i ID OH *t—) CCD 9)— U”OS Ui9) -t3 I-h”< H’<ft Ci)I-4--’ H-ti) CD- t9)..) 00 — -ft
- O CDS 1O -3 H- ft—’ 1cD ,-< CflH- 1I—f 0‘dt” -OCi I-’d 00 OWH 0L M 0 •QH- - <He-3 HH- XCD CDL H- = 0)’— Iltzi CD CD
9)5 9) 9) H-H-u 09) CD H-t1 -CflC) H ti CDft CDCD 5’< OX 0IC!) OOCD H it’I 9)9)(D 0 I- H-Cl) CDXi ti 9)0
J’F H- CDO •Q9) CD9) - Mi ft< ti0H- [-hO H- CD 9)9) HHtil H-H- HCI) H CDS - ftF-1 - txi =H, H- - H-5 Mi$) H- 9i’tI H - CD
H- 0 W ‘ti H-S 5 CD 00 fl9)CDCD CD[i 55 110 H- Ii1Q9) txift XCD —.i0’d WtT 0 IlMi • HH - CD CD9) ft[j ‘tiftfti (Q CD0 —9)0 WI9) HCD ft ti •- CD9) CDft 5rt 9) iCD
9)9) 0 CDH 11 ‘ft1 —.CD0 --1 9) 9)9)H H 1 CD CDCD tiiX HCD rt w ft 110 :i CCDLC1 Ctl) —CD 3- H
H- 9) 9) CD—. LCD— —t-h CD ft[-h -Ø.C) ‘109) --ft ti ft -0) CD’<CDN H ft HH [jH -00 o CD 9) b’H’1 ‘1 CDC —-. ‘1 ft.9) tiCD H-9) CD0 CDCDD FjHi U’i [j t’Jrj’1 9)9)’1i ‘t$) 011 OH H- -
ft -CD 011 “<CX) ft ‘O H ‘CD H’1 0110 iftCDCD ‘1H- CDQ HD 5 00) iCD - -..) ‘—ftW ,1-’tJH tCD ‘1 •- OCD H-H5 CD SCD ‘.0 CD Hi- 9) CD — 0— U,’1i iOCD CD t’1 HOH’tI i cu,
••i ••i -ft 0) ‘ti :9)0 t’J CiCD Wi9) ii H ftft CD 9)Cl) ‘C “dft H09) 0 Oft WOft CD--9)0 H-.. ‘1CD CD U]
0-- WO --‘1 - J’- Ulft11 Mi CD I CDCD ft i’< 0 ft ft Q. - I.rjY’ft ‘.710 CD WH-0 II H-1 H-WQ,5 CDft t’.)i H-Ft - CD
Hit!) CDi’ - CIP) W II -OCD 0) i0 UiCD ft9) CD l” W’1 OH- 0Oft CD I i OCl)ti CDII 11 9)i -9) 110i ]ICD —i CDCD H-’tS
C/) —I H- HftH- 9) H- H I ft’1CDft 9) -0 CDHCDo) ‘.oft <xi ‘i :ft 5 ft Q. CDH-O H’tj Hft H CDCD
H- i11 ii” CDO W1(X H- CD 0i’ W •CD’1O H9) ‘-110 CD HCCD ftH- 0CD I-’1 IJ’< C-JO MiCD I-H-QMi - ‘zl ‘1 0 CDiCD CD5 U] CDft U] t) Oi 9) H’1 CDCD 9) • CDH- 3 H- • C) H- 0 0 i L’l Li H H- 0 ‘1 3<H- Oi 9) ft MiH- ‘10 $1 05 (D5 ft CD CD H- 0- H-9) CD “<CD i tIti O’d ftH- OCD 9) 9) H -
CD CD oft 9) iH H-i ft CD H- ft0’- IICD H 00 CCD H C)
‘1 0 Mi H- Mi H 0 ‘.0 FJCDCD Mi ‘- SH- 011 H- 0 b’CD Mi ‘.0 •CD (Di MiH- OCD Mi 9)0 -CD CD - 0 CDi ii -- 9) .ft -
cr cnH- H- CD S CD P)H F—’ 0 H H 0 CD H- 0 H- 11Cl) 0 F-’ CD H CD H rt Cl] 0 00 5 5 ‘1 H- 0 S 9) Cl] CD CD
t1J <Zp) tiztr- ‘Ti- ict< 1 b—- o nr oo ‘.oPP)CDP OCDi ,CDctrt I39 CDHCD H- iH- i- -So
H- I-ct0 PCI- jijt’I CD ICDI 5ctt - rt H-i0 i9)’d< HrtH9) D)O I - ‘dCD- CtCD9) Li 0iH HH-i-3 it’ç-3CDH- bCDCDrt 0W OH-O Cfl5 h-i HF Fj (DCD 9)9)9)t7 lrtcl-0 PH-- 0P 9)D) tt9i rnct9) - IiX CD H- (DH-( OD] tHCDCD ICD9)b 00 tTD)P H0’< --I-j — IiCD CUP) P 59) PiP 0 HI-S frH< 09)’j’<H-H- SH-(D CD t-j H ICD CrtI H CD •i rt IHct9) C() ‘Ti ‘< HCI)C1) ‘.0 F0 H-1 H- CiCD ‘< CD-3 t<PJtj SL‘<5 rt’Ti ‘rIO - rtHxj ‘.o CD H-<’< 9) rtCDct H- <0C- -
0 H’‘rID] 9) • 0 IC)t <CD S tQ’ti H-- -OC4 ‘rI-’Tjrt P —‘ IH- - CDOP) I—’ CDtl-t • N PtlI’.O qCD’j Irt— IP — ti ‘‘..0 ‘<—. 009) 9)
H CDO O9)CU f<p CD’.o H Cl]ct 5’.D H HIOH- Pb—. 0Cfl’.D ct5 • ‘.0 • CD0 o’.o • H-1::y5:: t’JCl]HH Hrt’— l-CflH-1 (xi CDCDP. ‘.0 C t0’ H HOH-Cl) —.3- (D’.D I i•• P l-4’..0 CD<— H- $1a) U1t1j Hill0 I 5’.o P< 9) <-3 ‘Ti t— D](D — H-CD 0lJ - 0H O9)P9)—. p 4 tiQ-3 P’ti-- CD -Ht <‘r5 PJH- CD -CDH- H1PH-IQP W— 0 0 9)0 OCD 0 CD0 Cn Cl]O: iN NO’.0 40CD PCD OHCfl’xl OCD Hi I-’ I1F1 0 CDF0 li-9) COOP)• • P: -CD HH-0- P CUrt SCD H- Ci)rt- 91<0 OCDb OP,ty
ci CD91O O OY CD --Ct CDLi S H- CDCI F-9)i • CD O’riCDCl)<3 Cfl0 rl’<O H- i H- rtrtfl F-CD OHO Wrt H-H-CtOH-H- S 1 00 0 0i ri-H- ‘<OP I-ti MCDy OrtCDOH tPt t5 0 i 91 CD J -XHi HP)
OCD 9) CD 11 H- P Cnrt9) TPi OCD --.P)QCD rtCl] Pb0P)Ci o o <- c<
0 5H- rt0ltQ CD9) 0 P CD I1 O1 iHCDrt H-S Ct PH- 00 i 0 — PH-H- -
ii i-j 05 H H CD5 0 OillP 0 Cfl CDi-CD CDOH- H- (D’H- CD •- 15 9) PC1’.o OCD P (.Q l
P 00 lCD CU tl’.o 0 0—.. ‘TiP) 0 91H H- PJCi j< t-l 9) 09)01 D]H CDP) ‘Tit- HtIl(CD0 3CD <PlC!)— 9) H-O IH- 0 Hi — - H- ‘dO3 - 91j
ti 5-ri- Cl] OrtOH <Ci iCt H- owi • typiH- ttlH. C4rt PH-’.0 - CDrt H- rt O0’i ZCD HlCn W- 5 OH- • 0PJ’.o l-jY <-- 9) Q9) ‘-<-- H---O PCD9) CD H- Ci0 iHt Cl] CD ci- H-Oct •. C) i--i
tN l- PD) — CD H- F-! H- 0 P)C)H- 0Cl)P OH9)919) li•- —-3 C) rto D] 0 H-iCD -Ji-j tQi-j5 i-’.)
9) <5c-t CU ,-ti: H-CD i CDi-j H- OH-H- P:i.O OH-’.0H-IYH- Pp-] -OP)’- H- • 9)PCJ) CDS ••5 W W
rt 0 0 9) 5 CDt!) P CD CDP) 01Ic!)’-9) OCD i P)CD <1 tlCD •rt OH- ‘i C H -O
Cl]i Hi 0(00 CD CD II 1< C1Pi i-9) 10: 0:CD •9) p •OrtCj) Ii (DPI ‘ijCi -- CiP) CD H-0 IH-1i —Ot’l
Ii Cfl CDO •‘ Cl]5 D)Fti CDCI ‘PIP)• Oct WQ0 - H- ‘TI CtI1 - JPS 91 I
OH- OH-H- HP P H- H- ‘TIct Cl(D I H- iQPC) •- H-S —.HCfl9) 9) P)(D CD 0’iCJ) t- OCi(D jH
H- 09) hj c?H P 0 3 CDOO CDCD frti&]h ICfl’< 91crH- Cl) PcI 9) H- CD l- CDt-h (i -CiI Cl) rIO)
‘<0910 OCD P 0 HO 5 i•- Cl](f] H-- 0(J)9) H (D - - C): O
Hi - i H- 9) H- CD Ic 0 CD CDO 0 - 0 H- H- Ci- -- H- I H- ‘Ti Cl] Ii
‘TI •- 0 H H • :9)-- t-j ‘tj Hi CII H- 9) ‘Ti-ct
H
Walte
rJ.
Dio
lcey2—
6—96
Managin
gC
han
ge
inC
orre
ctio
nal
Institu
tion
s
We
can
re*sonably
tak
efo
rgra
nte
da
fewth
ing
sabout
the
futu
reo
fim
priso
nm
ent
inth
eU
nite
dS
tate
s.
We
are
goin
gto
hav
e
ale
to
fp
riso
ners
and
we
are
goin
gto
hav
eth
em
for
alo
ng
time.
Som
eo
fth
ose
pris
oners
will
serv
elo
ng
sente
nces;
ala
rger
nu
mb
er
will
serv
esh
oz’t
and
inte
rmed
iate
sente
nces.
Adis
pro
portio
nate
num
ber
will
be
men
and
mem
bers
of
min
ority
gro
up
s.T
he
co
st
of
imp
rison
men
tw
illbe
gre
at,
we
can
realis
tically
expect
only
marg
inal
red
uctio
ns
incost
(or
slow
er
gro
wth
inco
st)
from
effo
rts
for
gre
ate
reffic
ien
cy
,th
rou
gh
inm
ate
lab
or,
priv
atiz
atio
nand
use
of
technolo
gy.
Who
com
esin
topris
on
and
ho
wlo
ng
they
sta
yis
no
tw
ithin
the
con
trol
of
the
people
who
man
age
pris
ons.
While
corre
ctio
nal
offic
ials
have
som
ein
fluence
ov
er
these
dacis
ion
s(th
rou
gh
the
info
rmatio
nth
ey
pro
vid
eat
sente
ncin
gan
din
the
paro
lep
rocess),
wh
ois
su
bje
ct
toim
priso
nm
en
tand
itsdura
tion
are
decis
ions
left
tooth
ers
,witk
zin
cre
asin
gd
om
inatio
nb
yle
gis
latu
res
and
pro
secu
tors
and
astill
sig
nific
an
tro
lefo
rju
dges.
Sen
ten
cin
g
polic
yand
pra
ctic
ehave
beco
me
more
politic
al
at
least
inh
igh
vis
ibility
situ
&tio
ns.
Som
etim
es
this
results
ina
lon
gsente
nce
for
an
ind
ivid
ual,
bu
tits
gre
ate
rsocia
lsig
nific
ance
lies
inth
e
new
sente
ncin
gla
ws
(such
as
sexual
pre
dato
ran
dth
ree
str
ikes
law
s)w
hic
hcan
sig
nific
antly
influ
en
ce
co
rrectio
nal
man
agem
en
t.
Am
ore
subtle
oense
quenc.o
the
incre
ased
po
litical
atte
ntio
nto
sente
ncin
gis
itsin
fluence
on
dis
cre
tionary
decis
ions
by
judges
and
paro
leboard
s,
the
cre
atio
nan
dre
info
rcem
ent
of
aC
ultu
reof
sente
ncin
g.
Corre
ctio
nal
man
agem
ent
isdire
ctly
influ
enced
by
sente
ncin
g
ch
anges
(big
ger
num
bers
of
offe
nders
,fo
rexam
ple
)and
alg
ab
yth
e
atte
ndant
cultu
re
4W
heth
erth
e“m
essa
ge”
of
politic
ians
is
inte
nded
for
corre
ctio
nal
managers
or
not,
they
receiv
eand
heed
it.
!have
long
thought
that
ifone
wan
tsto
unders
tand
pris
ons
and
pre
dic
tth
eir
futu
re,
one
sho
uld
look
toth
ela
rger
socia
l
enviro
nm
ent,
for
pris
ons
refl:.c
tit.
Corre
ctio
nal
managers
are
giv
en
little
inth
ew
ayof
cle
ar
dire
ctio
nab
ou
tth
epro
ducts
they
are
top
rod
uce.
The
sta
tute
sof
mo
ststa
tes
hav
ea
pio
us
sta
tenent
of
missio
nfo
rcorre
ctio
ns’
departm
ents
,b
ulittle
more
inth
ew
ayof
specific
expecta
tions
and
evalu
atio
n.
Som
eclu
es
about
dire
ctio
nand
expecta
tion
can
be
fou
nd
inbudgets
,but
the
messa
ges
are
ofte
nm
ixed
and
confu
sin
g.
For
ex
am
ple
,corre
ctio
nal
industrie
spro
gra
ms
are
chara
cte
rized
by
gre
at
expecta
tions
about
outc
om
es
(profita
bility
and
inm
ate
‘obs),
limite
dre
sourc
es
toach
iev
eth
em
,and,
ofte
n,
legal
limits
on
what
types
of
industrie
sa
corre
ctio
nal
syste
mm
ayengage
and
ignora
nce
of
the
exte
rnal
labor
mark
et
for
whic
hpris
on
industrie
sis
to
pre
pare
itsem
plo
yees.
Corre
ctio
nal
managers
them
selv
es
suggest
wh
at
pro
ducts
they
should
pro
duce
by
pro
vid
ing
info
rmatio
nab
out
“re
cid
ivis
mrate
s,”
usually
antic
ipatin
gd
eman
dfo
rsu
ch
info
rmatio
n.
They
pro
vid
e
info
rmatio
non
esc
ap
era
tes,
assaults
of
sta
ff,
inm
ate
death
s,
inm
ate
grie
vances,
un
ion
grie
vances,
the
costs
of
imp
rison
men
t,th
e
2
num
ber
of
inm
ate
sat
work
or
inschool,
the
num
ber
double
celle
d,
and
the
like.
Much
of
this
info
rmatio
nis
develo
ped
now
as
managem
ent
tools
,at
the
request
of
1egis
lativ
eovers
ight
com
mitte
es
and
because
this
isw
hat
we
have
com
eto
expect
from
pris
on
managers,
wheth
er
it
isre
late
dto
desire
dpro
ducts
or.
not.
Giv
en
the
ray
polic
yis
mad
eand
the
daily
pre
ssure
sof
pris
on
managem
ent,
moat
corre
ctio
nal
man
agem
ent
isdevote
dto
“gettin
gth
rough
the
day.”
Because
corre
ctio
nal
adm
inis
trato
rshave
beco
me,
at
least
inth
epolitic
al
sense,
more
savvy,
“th
eday”
may
be
exte
nded
to“th
eyear,”
“th
ebie
nniu
m,”
and
“th
egovern
or’s
term
.”B
ut
as
anyone
who
has
work
ed
incorre
ctio
ns
know
s,pla
nnin
gto
ofa
rin
toth
efu
ture
isa
dangero
us
endeavor.
Events
,usually
unexpecte
dones
over
whic
hm
anagers
have
no
contro
l,have
aw
ayof
shapin
gpolic
ychoic
es.
Many
would
arg
ue
it
issm
arte
rto
be
opportu
nis
tictia
nto
pla
ce
much
faith
inpla
nnin
g.
Many
have
trie
dto
be
“pro
activ
e,”
inth
ecurre
nt
lingo,
but
the
results
,w
ithfe
wexceptio
ns,
are
sto
pgap.
This
sketc
hsuggests
man
yavenues
of
possib
lefu
ture
inquiry
toobserv
ers
of
the
corre
ctio
nal
scene.
Questio
ns
rela
ted
topris
on
cro
wdin
g:
agin
gand
health
care
;priv
atiz
atio
n;
technolo
gy;
race
and
gender;
the
use
of
forc
e;
pris
on
dis
cip
line;
paro
le;
recid
ivis
m;
and
the
like.
Unfo
rtunate
ly,
this
researc
his
likely
tobe
reactiv
etO
the
ad
hoc
develo
pm
ents
that
atte
nd
gro
wth
inany
institu
tion.
tassu
mes
no
essentia
lchange
inth
epris
on
enviro
nm
ent
oth
er
than
change
associa
ted
with
gro
wth
.I,
on
the
oth
er
hand,
the
pris
on
enviro
nm
ent
has
any
chance
of
changin
gand
3
impro
vin
g,
we
mis
tth
ink
about
the
ente
rpris
ediffe
rently
.T
his
is
the
mom
ent
toco
so.
My
goal,
then
isto
pro
voke
thought
about
how
we
mig
ht
unders
tand
the
pris
on
ente
rpris
ediffe
rently
.T
he
org
aniz
ing
prin
cip
lefo
rtiis
unders
tandin
gis
that
we
need
atte
ntio
nto
the
“pro
ducts
”of
pris
ons;
the
feasib
ilityof
vario
us
pro
ducts
pris
ons
mig
ht
pro
duce;
and
how
todecid
ew
hic
hpro
ducts
topro
duce
and
by
what
meth
ods.
Focus
on
these
issues
help
sorg
aniz
eth
em
anagem
ent
questio
ns.
Cla
rityabout
these
matte
rsw
illals
osharp
en
Our
unders
tandin
gof
rele
ase
decis
ions,
whic
hare
bound
tobeco
me
more
importa
nt
as
the
num
bers
of
pris
oners
incre
ase.
The
Pro
ducts
Today
we
asicpris
ons
topro
duce
every
thin
g,
but
expect
them
to
pro
duce
noth
ing
What
pro
ducts
mig
ht
pris
on
pro
duce?
-a
punish
ed
perso
n,
punish
ed
by
the
pris
on
regim
en
desig
ned
for
this
purp
ose
;
—a
perso
nle
ss
apt
toco
mm
itfu
rther
crim
es;
-an
incapacita
ted
perso
nunable
toco
mm
itcrim
es
on
the
publie
(and/o
ron
pris
oners
or
sta
ff),
while
impris
oned:
-a
perso
nw
itha
basic
educatio
nand
work
habits
;
-a
perso
nw
itha
stro
ng
connectio
nto
com
munity
,fa
mily
,
and
friends
outs
ide
of
pris
on
(or
aperso
ncut
off
from
their
pote
ntia
llycorru
ptin
gin
fluence):
—an
old
perso
n;
4
ahealth
yparso
n;
—an
angry
perso
n.
To
carry
this
meta
phor
abit
furth
er,
ifth
ere
are
one
millio
n
people
inpris
on,
we
have
one
billio
n1
620
millio
nm
anhours
of
idle
capacity
.A
tth
em
inimum
wag
e,th
isunta
pped
resourc
eis
worth
12
billio
ndolla
rs.
What
could
we
pro
duce
with
it——
of
econom
icvalu
eor
of
any
valu
e?
Perh
aps
we
should
expect
pris
ons
topro
duce
partic
ula
rkin
ds
of
enviro
nm
ents,
such
as
ord
erly
ones
insid
eth
epris
on
and
safe
ones
inth
eco
mm
unity
upon
pris
oners
retu
rnto
it.I
mentio
nth
e
com
munity
becauS
eth
isis
where
gre
ate
rsafe
tyis
deliv
ere
d--if
it
isto
be
apro
duct
of
pris
ons.
The
com
munity
takes
over
or
oo
man
ages
corre
ctio
ns
pro
ductio
nof
safa
ty—
—ugqestin
ga
set
of
man
agem
ent
challe
nges
for
the
corre
ctio
nal
mem
ber
of
the
pro
ductio
n
syste
m.
There
are
still
oth
ers
who
com
anageft
the
pro
ductio
n
pro
cess
inclu
din
gju
dges,
pro
secuto
rs,
and,
of
cours
e,
paro
le
agents--m
ore
sets
of
rela
tionship
sto
man
age,
nowfo
rth
e
pro
ductio
nof
safe
ty,
not
mere
lyfo
rpeacefu
lco-e
xis
tence.
How
should
we
decid
ew
hat
topro
duce?
curre
ntly
,w
hat
we
tryto
pro
duce
inpris
ons
istre
ate
dlik
e
man
yoth
er
dis
cre
tionary
,lo
wvis
ibility
decis
ions
inth
ecrim
inal
justic
esy
stem
.W
ebasic
ally
leave
itto
the
adm
inis
trato
rsto
decid
e,
subje
ct
of
course
,to
some
limita
tions,
what--if
anyth
ing—
—
they
will
pro
duce
and
howth
ey
will
go
about
it.T
here
are
bro
ad
legis
lativ
em
andate
s;at
the
marg
in,
constitu
tional
limits
on
corre
ctio
nal
pra
ctic
es
(with
incre
asin
gdefe
rence
paid
to
5
corre
ctio
nal
inarta
gers);
budget
limits
and,
occasio
nally
mandate
s;
implic
itgoals
Lik
e,
for
exam
ple
,escap
esan
dX
iots
be
kept
toa
min
imum
.Ju
dges
may
dire
ct
or
uggest
what
should
happen
toa
sente
nced
offe
nder
(dru
gtre
atm
ent,
sex
offe
nders
counselin
g,
incapacita
tion)
and
the
influ
ence
of
the
judge
over
the
pro
duct
in
anin
div
idual
case
varie
s.
On
the
whole
,how
ever,
there
isnot
much
syste
matic
,deta
iled
atte
ntio
nto
hoWto
decid
ew
hat
topro
duce.
Put
anoth
er
way
,w
e
have
not
applie
dth
eprin
cip
leof
legality
toth
equestio
ns
Pris
on
polic
ies,
for
exam
ple
,are
ofte
nex
empt
from
sta
teadm
inis
trativ
e
pro
cedure
acts
whic
hre
quire
sta
teagencie
sto
pro
mulg
ate
thro
ugh
rule
sall
matte
tsof
polic
yan
dpro
cedure
.A
gain
,th
ism
irrors
the
experie
nce
of
polic
ean
dpro
secuto
rs,
who
mak
esim
ilar
importa
nt
and
dis
cre
tionary
decis
ions
with
out
guid
ance
or
refe
rence
poin
ts
for
the
decis
ions.
Should
this
prin
cip
leof
legality
apply
incorre
ctio
ns?
Ifit
did
,th
efo
rmal
pro
cess
mig
ht
yie
ldth
eansw
er
that
we
want
all
the
pro
ducts
Ihave
nentio
ned
here
,an
dm
ore.
On
the
oth
er
hand,
ifw
e
sharp
en
our
thin
icin
gabout
pro
ducts
and
howw
earriv
eat
decis
ions
about
them
,it
mig
ht
sharp
en
indiv
idual
decis
ions
as
well
as
pro
vid
ea
ratio
rle
when
inquiry
ism
adeabout
wheth
er
pris
ons
are
pro
ducin
gw
hat
‘We
expect.
It
mig
ht
lead
us
toth
ink
much
more
care
fully
about
what
we
want
from
pris
ons,
as
oppose
dto
what
we
are
offe
red
by
them
,w
hat
we
expect
tore
ceiv
e,
and
what
we
actu
ally
get
(every
thin
gan
dnoth
ing).
6
Nan
aain
aris
on
sto
Pro
duce
Pro
ducts
What
pris
on
“stu
ff”advances
or
imped
es
the
dev
elo
pm
ent
of
the
pro
ducts
we
wan
t?I
wish
Iw
ere
mo
refa
milia
rw
ithth
elite
ratu
re
on
the
socio
logy
of
pris
ons
soas
toin
form
my
exp
erie
nce,
whic
his
basic
ally
this
.
Pris
ons
(and
pris
on
syste
ms)
are
com
ple
xso
cia
lorg
aniz
atio
ns
Fro
mth
eouts
ide,
they
may
appear
toco
nsis
to
fin
mate
sand
sta
ff.
Th
ein
mate
sm
ayh
av
eth
eir
own
gro
upin
gs
alo
ng
av
arie
tyof
lines
inclu
din
gra
ce,
gangs,
eth
nic
itj,age,
sen
ten
ce
len
gth
.T
hey
hav
e
dif
ferent
inte
rests
and
their
unders
tand
ing
of
their
inte
rests
ofte
nchanges.
An
ofte
ncite
dexam
ple
are
the
changes
inin
terests
of
long
term
inm
ate
sover
time.
The
sta
ff
C&
flb
eas
com
ple
x.
Th
ere
has
been
som
ew
ork
done
on
pris
on
unio
ns,
bu
ta
div
isio
nof
sta
ff
into
man
agem
ent
an
dunio
nis
sim
plis
tic.
The
unio
ns
are
com
ple
xan
dth
eir
irzflu
en
oe
shif
tsw
ith
ch
anges
inle
ad
ers
hip
and
ev
en
ts.
The
unifo
rmed
supezvis
ory
sta
ff
can
have
com
pleX
rela
tions
with
oth
er
sta
ff
gro
ups.
All
com
eup
thro
ug
hth
era
nJs
(and
un
ion
).T
heir
pay
and
ben
efits
ofte
nare
not
com
mensu
rate
with
their
resp
on
sib
ilityan
dth
eir
opportu
nity
for
ov
ertim
em
aybe
red
uced
by
pro
motio
n.
Th
eyare
inun
iform
,b
ut
man
ag
em
en
t,th
oqgh
their
sta
tus
and
pay
may
no
trefle
ct
this
,nor
their
alle
gia
nces.
Socia
lw
ork
ers,
teachers
,b
usin
ess
an
dcle
ric
al
sta
ff
all
have
their
ow
nin
terests
an
dlo
yaltie
s,
as
do
es
the
ward
en
and
the
executiv
esta
ff.
The
inte
ractio
ns
of
all
these
people
pro
duce
the
en
viro
nm
ent
and
pro
du
cts
of
Jris
ons.
But
the
whole
isgre
ate
rth
an
the
sum
of
7
the
parts
.P
risons
als
ohave
Lncliv
idual
cultu
res
and
these
are
co
mp
licate
db
yth
elo
catio
nof
pris
ons,
inp
rison
tow
ns
or
in
pris
on
are
as
of
indiv
idual
sta
tes,
wh
ich
have
ala
rger
and
ofte
n
sig
nif
ican
tcu
lture
of
their
own
that
influ
en
ces
managem
ent
pra
ctic
es.
Ih
av
esaid
noth
ing
Of
the
fact
that
pris
on
sare
parts
of
syste
ms;
that
new
pris
ons
are
added
toth
ese
syste
ms;
that
pris
on
s
are
influ
en
ced
by
departm
enta
lactio
ns,
them
selv
es
tak
en
ina
sta
te
go
vern
men
tal
ou
J.ture
.
My
baio
poin
tis
that
itw
ou
ldbe
very
usefu
lto
tuid
ers
tan
d
bette
rth
ein
terp
lay
of
people
,org
an
izatio
nand
forc
es
wh
ich
influ
ence
the
pris
on
pro
duct,
ifw
ew
ant
tom
anag
eth
emto
pro
du
ce
aspecific
set
of
pro
du
cts
.
Gettin
gP
risoners
Out
There
will
be,
Ib
elie
ve,
co
ntin
ued
effo
rtsto
identify
way
s
tog
et
pris
oners
out
of
pris
on,
ifonly
tom
ake
room
far
the
new
cOm
ers.W
hile
we
need
tounders
tan
dhow
pre
sen
tre
lease
mechanism
sw
oric
(paro
le,
pard
on
,m
odific
atio
nof
sente
nce
for
exam
ple
)it
would
be
usefu
lto
ex
plo
reth
ese
mech
anism
sin
the
ligh
tof
the
pro
ducts
we
mig
ht
pro
duce.
Pu
tano
ther
way
,if
we
can
be
more
cle
ar
ab
ou
tw
hat
we
seek
toachie
ve,
the
decis
ion
ae
to
whom
and
when
rele
ase
sh
all
beco
me
easie
r,
One
develo
pm
ent
that
Ifo
resee
isth
e“re
defin
ition
of
the
pris
on.”
We
can
call
this
anew
rele
ase
mechanism
,o
rsim
ply
no
te
that
there
are
way
sto
blu
rth
edis
tinctio
nb
etw
een
pris
on
an
d
paro
le,
tocre
ate
new
custo
dy
arra
ng
em
ents
that
are
as
B
incapacita
ting
as
pris
on
but
lees
expensiv
eand
less
die
tant
from
com
munity
.If
this
iscorre
ct,
we
need
tounders
tand
the
pote
ntia
l,th
eris
ks,
and
the
“arc
hite
ctu
r&’
of
pris
ons
whic
hare
exte
nded
into
the
com
munity
.I
have
been
involv
ed
with
and
obse
rved
such
are
de:fin
ition
effort
inW
isconsin
,calle
dIn
tensiv
eS
anctio
ns,
and
there
are
undoubte
dly
sim
ilar
efforts
inoth
er
sta
tes.
This
isquite
consis
tent
with
gre
ate
rco
mm
unity
involv
em
ent
in
pris
on
pro
duct
develo
pm
ent.
If
com
munitie
sare
the
recip
ients
and
co-m
anagers
of
the
pro
ducts
,th
ere
are
way
sto
invoic
eth
e
com
munity
’shelp
in“deliv
erin
gth
epro
duct,”
way
sth
at
are
quite
dif
ferent
from
pre
sent
form
sof,
say,
paro
lesuperv
isio
n.
Rese
arc
hM
eth
ods
Rath
er
than
tryto
be
com
pre
hensiv
e,
Iw
illm
ake
two
suggestio
ns
about
researc
hm
eth
ods.
We
have
had
agre
at
deal
of
experie
nce
with
pris
ons.
What
have
we
learn
ed
from
it?W
hat,
for
exam
ple
,do
we
know
about
pris
on
cro
wdin
gand
itseffe
ct
on
what
we
pro
duce?
Many
new
pris
ons
have
opened
inth
epast
decade.
What
have
we
learn
ed
about
howto
open
newpris
ons
tocre
ate
cultu
res
consis
tent
with
our
obje
ctiv
es.
What
do
we
know
about
bowto
change
apris
on
cultu
re?
We
have
had
mnanr
pris
oners
who
have
serv
ed
long
sente
nces.
How
does
this
affe
ct
the
matu
ratio
nan
dagin
gpro
cess?
Nenta
l
develo
pm
ent
and
health
?T
heir
role
inth
em
ixof
people
who
are
and
pro
duce
the
pro
ducts
of
pris
ons?
Apla
ce
tobegin
the
develo
pm
ent
of
“actio
n”
know
ledge,
9
know
ledge
of
use
,is
toin
quire
of
pro
fessio
nals
with
experie
nce
in
these
matte
rs.
People
who
wo
rkin
pris
ons
have
know
ledge
that
we
need
tosurfa
ce
sif
tth
rough,
test
and
use
tom
anag
echange.
Fin
ally
,w
eneed
totry
toim
agin
ea
pris
on
world
that
is
diffe
rent
ifw
ew
ant
one
which
isdiffe
rent.
Can
we
tryto
do
this
,develo
p“m
od
els”
soto
speak,
and
then
work
back
from
there
toundersta
nd
howto
man
age
the
com
plex
inte
rpla
yto
get
us
whate
ver
itis
we
wan
t?
10
I377
ME
AS
UR
ING
SE
NT
EN
CIN
GIM
PA
CT
SU
SIN
GE
XT
AN
TD
AT
A:
byP
eterG
reenwood
SU
MM
AR
YO
FD
ISC
US
SIO
NP
OIN
TS
1.T
wo
Basic
Audien
cesfo
rS
enten
cing
Research
•P
olicym
akersand
practitionersinterested
indescribing
orcom
paringsentencing
policiesof
particularstates.
•R
esearchersinterested
inexploring
ortesting
specificrelationships
(deterrence,incapacitation,
bias,etc.).
2.T
he
Sen
tencin
gP
olicy
En
viro
nm
ent
•P
ast25
yearshave
seentrem
endouschanges
inpolicies
andpractice.
•M
uchis
known
aboutthe
operationof
currentsentencing
systems,
andtheir
impacts
oncrim
e.•
Sentencing
comm
issionshave
beenthe
most
successfuland
durablereform
.•
New
wave
ofsentencing
reformactivity
appearsto
bedriven
bynaive
ideologyand
partisanpolitics.
•S
entencingpolicy
isbecom
ingan
increasinglyim
portantinfluence
onstate
andlocal
budgets.•
Many
correctionaland
courtsystem
sare
severelyoverloaded.
3.D
ataC
urren
tlyA
vailab
leF
or
Mo
stS
tatesA
nnualaggregate
correctionspopulation
andadm
issiondata
•P
eriodicsurveys
offacilities
andindividual
inmates
•U
suallyinclude
currentoffense
andpersonal
characteristicsbut
notprior
record
4.F
ou
rty
pes
of
Stu
dies
•D
escriptive:S
entencinglaw
s,disposition
andsentencing
patterns,prison
populationcharacteristics,
etc.•
Projections
andE
valuations:F
utureprison
populationsize
andcharacteristics,
impacts
ofspecific
laws
oncaseloads,
crime
andcosts
•H
ypothesistesting:
Deterrence
andincapacitation
effects,im
pactsof
specificreform
s,etc.
•C
ost-Benefit
Studies:
Com
paringinvestm
entsin
sanctionsto
othercrim
ep
reven
tion
strategies.
5.P
roblem
s•
Most
datasets
donot
containm
uchdetail
onprior
record•
Appropriate
analysisand
modeling
methods
requiresom
esophistication
•W
idediversity
inpurported
results•
Hard
tocreate
audiencefor
sentencingresearch
Measuring
Sentencing
Impact
-I
-February
5,1996
Using
Extant
Data
Peter
W.G
reenwood
ME
AS
UR
ING
SE
NT
EN
CIN
GIM
PA
CT
SU
SIN
GE
XT
AN
TD
AT
A:
WH
AT
WO
UL
DP
EO
PL
EL
IKE
TO
KN
OW
AN
DW
HA
TW
OU
LD
TH
EY
DO
WIT
HT
HE
INF
OR
MA
TIO
NIF
TH
EY
HA
DIT
?
Concept
Paper
Prepared
forN
IJW
orkshopon
Sentencing
andC
orrectionsR
esearchb
yP
eterG
reenwood
February
1996
1.T
HE
MA
RK
ET
FO
RS
EN
TE
NC
ING
RE
SE
AR
CH
There
aretw
obasic
markets
forsentencing
research:1)
thepolicy
making
and
practitionercom
munity
thatis
interestedin
descriptiveand
outcome
datafor
particularstates;
and2)
theresearch
comm
unitythat
isinterested
intesting
relationshipsor
exploringthe
impacts
ofspecific
sentencingpolicies.
The
information
desiredby
thefirst
groupis
largelydescriptive,
comparative,
or
projectionsof
futuretrends.
•H
owdo
we
compare
toother
statesin
terms
ofsentence
severityor
howw
e
treatdrug
users?
•H
owfast
isour
prisonpopulation
growing
compared
toother
states?
•H
owm
uchdoes
thenew
mandatory
sentencinglaw
Xadd
toour
prison
populationand
courtcosts,
andhow
much
crime
doesit
prevent?
The
information
requiredby
researchersis
usuallym
oredetailed,
involving
trendsover
time,
with
much
more
concernabout
variabledefinitions
and
measurem
entaccuracy,
sincem
easurement
errorstend
toobscure
ordistort
the
relationsh
ips
beingin
vestig
ated.
Measuring
Sentencing
Impact
-2
-February
5,1996
Using
Extant
Data
Peter
W.G
reenwood
There
hasbeen
tremendous
changeand
upheavalin
sentencingpolicies
and
practiceover
thepast
25years,
andthe
accumulation
ofa
greatdeal
of
information
onthe
impacts
ofspecific
policyreform
s(T
onry,‘996).
Unfortunately,
much
ofthe
currentreform
activityappears
tobe
drivenby
uninformed
ideologyor
partisanpolitics
ratherthan
anyreal
appreciationof
what
we
knowabout
howthese
reforms
will
work.
The
strongestinterest
in
descriptivesentencing
datacan
befound
inthose
statesthat
havesom
eform
of
sentencingcom
mission
andguideline
structure,particularly
thosethat
are
requiredto
keeptheir
prisonpopulation
within
specifiedlim
its.
Because
currentpolicy
debatesfocus
primarily
onthe
issueof
sentenceseverity,
most
ofthe
comparisons
peoplem
akebetw
eenstates
dealw
iththis
issuein
terms
likethe
incarcerationrate
(percapita
orper
crime)
orthe
expected
sentenceper
arrestor
crime.
But
itw
ouldseem
thatstate-by-state
comparisons
canalso
beused
toassess
theallocation
ofprison
capacityto:
violentoffenders,
as
opposedto
propertyor
drugoffenders;
repeatoffenders
orparole
violatorsas
opposedto
first-timers;
orother
breakdowns
byrace,
sexor
age.C
omparisons
between
appropriatestates
canclearly
helpto
informpolicy
debatesabout
how
longsentences
needto
be,how
much
correctionalcapacity
isrequired,
andhow
it
shouldbe
allocated.U
nfortunately,there
isnot
much
researchon
howsentencing
dataactually
getsused
bypolicy
makers
(Tonry,
1996).
Inaddition
totracking
sentenceseverity,
researchersuse
sentencingdata
in
attempting
toassess
theim
pactsof
specificreform
son
suchoutcom
esas
disparity(variation
insentences
forsim
ilarcases)
andproportionality
(relative
sentenceseverity
fordifferent
crimes),
andto
assessthe
impacts
ofsharp
changesin
policy(natural
experiments)
andinter-state
variationson
crime
throughthe
mechanism
sof
deterrenceand
incapacitation.S
inceconcerns
about
Measuring
Sentencing
Impact
-3
-February
5,1996
Using
Extant
Data
Peter
W.G
reenwood
“publicsafety”
appearto
bea
strongdriving
forcebehind
therecent
wave
of
mandatory
sentences,it
issom
ewhat
surprisingthat
we
knowso
littleabout
how
varioustypes
ofsentences
affectcrim
e;and
what
littleinform
ationw
ehave
is
notw
idelyshared
oraccepted.
The
remainder
ofthis
paperexam
inesthe
potentialbenefits
tobe
obtainedfrom
conductingthese
typesof
studies,w
iththe
kindsof
datathat
arenow
routinely
collected,the
limitations
ofthe
currentdata,
andw
aysin
which
itm
ightbe
augmented.
Iw
ouldlike
tothank
Daniel
Nagin
andJon
Caulkins
ofC
arnegie-
Mellon
University
fortheir
helpfulsuggestions,
Larry
Greenfeld
forsum
marizing
theB
JSdata,
andM
ichaelT
onry,F
ranklinZ
imring,
andD
avidH
awkins
for
publishingrecent
bookson
thistopic
thatare
veryhelpful
inunderstanding
the
researchissues.
2.W
HA
TD
AT
AIS
GE
NE
RA
LL
YA
VA
ILA
BL
E
The
Bureau
ofJustice
Statistics
(BJS
)m
anagesan
ambitious
programof
systematic
datacollection
regardingthe
sizeand
characteristicsof
correctionalprogram
sand
populations,by
state,as
well
assum
mary
statisticson
them
ovement
and
dispositionof
criminal
casesin
court.T
herem
ainderof
thissection
describesthe
major
BJS
datacollection
effortsrelated
tosentencing,
andtheir
limitations.
Further
documentation
isreadily
availablefrom
BJS
ortheir
Archive
atthe
University
ofM
ichigan(http://icpsr.um
ich.edu/NA
CJD
).
Natio
nal
Priso
ner
Statistics
(NP
S)
producesannual
andsem
iannualnational
andstate-level
dataon
thenum
bersof
prisonersin
stateand
federalfacilities
(seeU
.S.D
epartment
ofJustice,
Bureau
ofJustice
Statistics,
Priso
ners
in1992,
1994,U
.S.
Departm
entof
Justice,or
Bureau
ofJustice
Statistics,
Sourcebook
of
Crim
inalJustice
Statistics,
1993).
Measuring
Sentencing
Impact
-4
-February
5,1996
Using
Extant
Data
Peter
W.G
reenwood
Natio
nal
Correctio
ns
Rep
ortin
gP
rogram
(NC
RP
)collects
datanearly
every
yearon
allprison
admissions
andreleases
andon
allparole
entriesand
dischargesin
participatingju
risdictio
ns
Also
includesm
ovements
between
jail
andprison
andentries,
exits,and
totalpopulation
bysex,
race,and
sentence
length.(see
BJS,
Correctional
Populations
inthe
United
States,,
1993).
Annual
JailS
ample
Surv
eycollects
annualnational
estimates
ofthe
number
ofinm
atesin
localjails.
Census
ofL
ocalJails
isconducted
everyfive
yearsand
describesfacilities,
progfams,
number
ofinm
ates,rated
capacity,percent
ofcapacity
occupied,
number
ofjails,
number
ofstaff,
number
ofinm
atesper
employee,
annual
operatingexpenditure
(seeB
JS,
Census
of
Jails(1983,
1988,1993)
andA
nnual
Survey
ofJails
(1994)).
Surv
eyof
JailIn
mates
isperiodically
administered
tocollect
dataon
the
demographic
characteristicsof
jailinm
ates,prior
drugand
alcoholuse,
historyof
physicalabuse,
andprior
contactsw
ithC
Jsystem
.
Cen
sus
of
State
Priso
ners
isconducted
approximately
everyfive
yearsand
providesdetailed
information
oncharacteristics
offacilities.
Surv
eyof
State
Priso
nIn
mates
isconducted
everyfive
years,providing
data
oninm
ates’crim
inalhistories,
comm
itment
offense(s),drug
andalcohol
use,and
demographic
characteristics(see
BJS
,V
iolentO
ffendersin
State
Priso
n:
Sentences
andT
ime
Served,
1995)w
hichcontains
anum
berof
violentnew
court
comm
itments
tostate
prisonby
state,m
eantotal
maxim
umsentence
length,
mean
minim
umtim
eto
beserved,
andnum
berof
violentfirst
releases.
Measuring
Sentencing
Impact
-5
-February
5,1996
Using
Extant
Data
Peter
W.G
reenwood
Natio
nal
Pro
batio
nan
dP
arole
Rep
ortin
gP
rogram
gathersannual
dataon
stateand
federalprobation
andparole
countsand
movem
entsand
the
characteristicsof
personsunder
supervision.P
ublisheddata
includeadm
issionsand
releasesby
method
ofentry
anddischarge.
Natio
nal
Surv
eyof
Adults
onP
robatio
ncrim
inalhistory,
prioralcohol
anddrug
use,participation
intreatm
ent,firearm
use,and
conditionsof
supervisionfor
arepresentative
sample
ofthe
2.5m
illionadults
onprobation.
Natio
nal
Judicial
Rep
ortin
gS
ystem
nationalprobability
sample
ofcounty
courtsystem
sprovides
dataon
characteristicsof
felons,conviction
offense,type
ofsentence,
sentencelength,
courtprocessing
time.
Surv
eyof
State
Court
Org
anizatio
ns
providesinform
ationon
useof
sentencingcom
missions,
guidelines,type
ofsentencing
androle
ofjuries
insentencing
(1980,87,
92).
Natio
nal
Pretrial
Rep
ortin
gP
rogram
(NP
RP
)provides
dataon
processingof
felonsfrom
40jurisdictions
selectedto
providea
representativesam
pleof
the75
largestcounties
inthe
nation,including
for12
months
afterentry
intothe
systemor
untilcase
dispositionand
includes:arrest
offense,prior
record,pretrial
release,pretrial
arrestsand
failuresto
appear,disposition
andsentence.
NIB
ER
S/U
CR
providesquarterly
dataon
thenum
berof
reportedcrim
esand
arrestsin
most
Am
ericancities
andcounties
(seeU
.S.
Departm
entof
Justice,F
ederalB
ureauof
Investigation,F
BI
Uniform
Crim
eR
eports).
Offen
der-B
asedT
ransactio
nS
tatisticsO
BT
S)
pro
vid
esdata
onarrest
throughdisposition
forreporting
jurisd
ictions.
Measuring
Sentencing
Impact
-6
-February
5,1996
Using
Extant
Data
Peter
W.G
reenwood
The
most
glaringdeficiency
inall
thesedata
setsis
theabsence
ofdetailed
prior
recordinform
ationor
standardizedoffense
classificationschem
es.Just
about
everystate
thathas
attempted
toexam
ineits
useof
scarcecorrections
capacity
hasfound
itnecessary
andhelpful
todisplay
sentencingdata
ina
two
dimensional
gridw
herecurrent
offensecategories
arelisted
indecreasing
or
increasingorder
ofseverity
onone
axis,and
some
measure
ofprior
recordis
listedon
theother.
Yet
most
ofthe
datasystem
sdescribed
abovefail
tocollect
systematic
information
onindividual
priorrecords.
At
atim
ew
henm
anystates
areconsidering
avariety
ofrepeat
offenderm
andatorysentencing
laws,
itm
akes
itvery
difficultto
estimate
theim
pactsof
suchlaw
sw
ithoutknow
ingw
hat
fractionof
inmates
would
beaffected
bythem
,and
howthose
offendersare
curren
tlytreated
.
The
problemthat
arisesin
attempting
tom
akecross-state
comparisons
isthat
most
statesthat
docollect
dataaccording
tothe
offensecategories
spelledout
in
theirow
nlaw
s(i.e.
fivelevels
offelonies),
andnot
accordingto
some
standardizedcategories
likesay
theU
CR
.T
heE
dnaM
cConnell
Clark
Foundation’s
State
Centered
Sentencing
Program
isattem
ptingto
overcome
thisproblem
by
havingparticipating
states(N
orthC
arolina,S
outhC
arolina,O
klahoma,
andO
regon)
reporttheir
sentencingdata
usingstandardized
offenseand
priorrecord
categories.
Measuring
Sentencing
Impact
-7
-February
5,1996
Using
Extant
Data
Peter
W.G
reenwood
3.D
ES
CR
IPT
IVE
ST
UD
IES
There
areseveral
differenttypes
ofdescriptive
studiesthat
might
inform
discussionsof
potentialsentencing
reforms
ina
particularstate.
Som
eexam
ples
arelisted
below.
Characteristics
of
senten
cing
laws
and
recent
or
plan
ned
reform
s-
-
One
ofthe
firstthings
peopleneed
toknow
when
theyw
antto
compare
themselves
toother
states,or
startthinking
aboutchanges
totheir
own
sentencingstructure,
isw
hatother
statesare
doing:w
hichstates
havesentencing
guid
lines;
which
havepassed
Three
Strike
laws;
which
havem
andatory
sentencesfor
gunuse
(foran
example,
seeF
rase,1995).
Sen
tencin
gpattern
sby
offen
se,prio
rreco
rdan
doth
erch
aracteristics
ofin
terest--
Any
attempt
toaddress
thedeterrent,
incapacitationor
just
desertsfocus
ofcurrent
sentencinglaw
srequires
thedevelopm
entof
a
sentencinggrid
depictinghow
currentoffense
andprior
recordinteract
to
determine
sentencetype
(prisonversus
probationor
intermediate
sanction)and
severity.F
orpolicy
purposesit
will
oftenbe
helpfulto
havefurther
breakdowns
bysex,
race,and
age,and
toknow
thedistribution
ofsentences
within
an
individualcell
asw
ellas
them
edian,average,
orrange.
This
typeof
studyis
oftenappropriate
forassessing
theim
pactof
aspecific
sentencingreform
(new
mandatory
sentencinglaw
s).W
eneed
toknow
more
aboutpractitioners’
useof
andreactions
tosuch
dataw
henit
isintroduced
inspecific
contexts.
Tim
eserv
ed--
Inthis
dayof
suspendedsentences
and1-for-i
goodtim
e,it
is
essentialto
knowthe
actualtim
esserved
asopposed
tothat
imposed,
for
particulartypes
ofoffenders
andsentences.
Insom
estates,
some
prisoninm
ates
aregetting
50percent
offtheir
sentencesfor
goodtim
ew
hileothers
are
Measuring
Sentencing
Impact
-8
-February
5,1996
Using
Extant
Data
Peter
W.G
reenwood
restrictedby
“truthin
sentencinglaw
s”to
only5
or10
percentoff.
Som
e
sentencedto
oneyear
jailsentences
will
serveless
thana
month,
andsatisfactory
participationin
drugtreatm
entcan
reduce2
yearprobation
sentencesto
6
months.
Tim
eserved
ratherthan
time
imposed
isthe
inputparam
eterrequired
forany
modeling
ofdeterrent
orincapacitation
effects.C
omparative
dataon
time
servedcould
beintroduced
intothe
descriptivesentencing
studiesdescribed
above.
Characteristics
of
offen
der
populatio
nby
convictio
noffen
se,prio
r
record
,race
and
age-
-G
iventhe
currentsize
andcharacteristics
ofa
state’s
prisonpopulation,
andits
crime
rateand
sentencingpolicy,
itis
afairly
straightforward
taskto
predicthow
theprison
populationw
illchange.
Likew
ise,
descriptivedata
abouthow
theprison
populationhas
beenchanging
overtim
e,
alongw
iththe
crime
rate,can
beused
toinfer
what
sentencingpolicy
hasbeen
in
place,if
goodsentencing
datais
notavailable.
Analysis
ofthe
characteristicsof
particularcorrectional
populations(prison,
jail,parole,
etc.)is
alsoa
goodm
ethod
ofunderstanding.
where
correctionalfunds
arebeing
spent,and
which
typesof
offendersare
most
affected.
For
thoseinterested
inthe
deterrentor
incapacitationeffects
ofa
sentencing
policydata
onthe
percentagesent
toprison
andaverage
prisonsentence
imposed,
asa
functionof
reportedcrim
es,is
farm
oreim
portantthan
similar
data
ona
convictionbasis,
sincethere
isso
much
possibilityof
systematic
differences
inthe
probabilityof
arrestand
convictionbetw
eenstates.
These
kindof
directcom
parisonsare
probablythe
most
valuableor
informative
kindof
analysisfor
them
ajorityof
practitionersand
policym
akers.T
he
principaldifficulty
inconducting
themis
standardizingthe
dataacross
reporting
Measuring
Sentencing
Impact
-9
-February
5,1996
Using
Extant
Data
Peter
W.G
reenwood
jurisdictionsand
accountingfor
known
differencesin
sentencingstructure
(ageof
transferfrom
juvenileto
criminal
court,availability
ofinterm
ediatesanctions,
etc.).T
histask
ofstandardizing
andcleaning
datasets
isa
time
consuming
effort
thatm
anyanalysts
nowdo
ontheir
own,
butcould
easilybe
doneas
asingle
effort,to
developand
providea
standardizeddata
filethat
many
analystscould
use.S
incethis
typeof
datais
nowonly
rarelyused
bypolicy
makers,
we
needto
developm
oreinform
ationabout
howto
getothers
interestedand
usedto
working
with
it.T
heE
dnaM
cConnell
Clark
Foundation’s
State
Centered
Sentencing
Program
mentioned
aboveis
anexam
pleof
suchan
effort.
4.P
RO
JEC
TIO
NS
AN
DE
VA
LU
AT
ION
S
Descriptive
studiesare
usefulfor
identifyingpotential
problems
(Are
drugusers
reallytaking
up20
percentof
ourprison
beds,com
paredto
a12
percentnational
average?)and
potentialsolutions
(Infive
yearsstate
xreduced
thefraction
of
theirprison
bedsdevoted
todrug
usersfrom
15percent
to8
percentby
implem
entinga
Drug
Court).
How
ever,m
odelsthat
predictfuture
correctional
populationsand
caseloadsare
requiredto
estimate
thepotential
impacts
of
proposedsentencing
reforms.
This
isthe
kindof
model
RA
ND
developedfor
itsanalysis
ofthe
California
Three
Strikes
Law
(Greenw
oodet
al,1994).
There
arenot
many
suchm
odelsaround
andfew
havebeen
validatedin
oneor
more
jurisdictions.M
ostsuch
models
have
beendeveloped
bycorrectional
plannersand
usedto
forecastfuture
facilityand
programcapacity
needs.B
utthey
canalso
beused
topredict
theim
pactof
sentencingreform
son
crime
rates,and
workloads
andcosts
forother
partsof
the
criminal
justice
systemthan
just
corrections(prosecution
anddefense
caseloads,
Measuring
Sentencing
Impact
-10
-February
5,1996
Using
Extant
Data
Peter
W.G
reenwood
number
ofjury
trials,etc.
We
needm
oredevelopm
entand
testingof
such
models,
andefforts
toget
themused
insentencing
reformdebates.
Projection
models
arealso
requiredto
measure
theim
pactsof
actualsentencing
changes.If
youw
antto
knowhow
effectivesom
enew
intermediate
sanctionlaw
hasbeen
atdiverting
lessserious
offendersfrom
prison,you
needto
havesom
e
way
ofprojecting
what
would
havehappened
ifthe
newlaw
were
notpassed.
5.H
YP
OT
HE
SIS
TE
ST
ING
Inaddition
toproviding
descriptivedata
andprojections
tohelp
policym
akers
andplanners,
aggregatecrim
eand
sentencingdata
canbe
usedto
testa
variety
ofhypotheses
regardingthe
impacts
ofsentencing
oncrim
inalsand
crime.
The
most
controversialissues
inthis
areaconcern
them
agnitudeof
them
arginal
deterrentand
incapacitationeffects
thatcan
beattributed
tonew
mandatory
sentencelaw
s.
Assertions
aboutthe
number
ofcrim
esaverted
byan
additionalyear
inprison,
forone
offender,range
fromover
100(Z
edlewski,
1985;D
ilulioand
Piehi,
1991)
toless
than3
or4
(Zim
ringand
Haw
kins,1995;
Greenw
oodet.
al.,1994).
Proponents
ofm
andatorysentencing
laws
predict(and
citeanecdotal
evidence
thatsuggests)
largedeterrence
effectsbut
academics
arem
uchm
oreskeptical.
The
generalconsensus
within
theresearch
comm
unityis
thatsuch
effectsare
fairlysm
alland
difficultto
detect.
Dete
rrence
--
Acluster
ofstudies
duringthe
1970’sand
early1980’s
pushed
thestate-of-the-art
incross-sectional
econometric
analysesw
ithoutproviding
clearevidence
asto
them
agnitudeof
deterrenceeffects.
Although
most
ofthe
Measuring
Sentencing
Impact
-11
-February
5,1996
Using
Extant
Data
Peter
W.G
reenwood
studiesfound
aninverse
relationshipbetw
eencrim
erates
andsanctions,
the
methodological
problemthey
couldnot
resolvew
asthat
of“sim
ultaneity”;
determining
tow
hatdegree
highersanctions
causedlow
ercrim
erates,
orhigh
crime
ratesresulted
inlow
ersanctions,
becauseof
limited
resources(B
lumstein
etal,
1978).
Inthe
interveningyears,
anum
berof
analyseshave
proposednew
strategiesfor
solvingthese
problems,
suchas
usingthe
abruptchanges
inincarceration
levels
thatcan
beattributed
toprison
overcrowding
litigation(L
evitt,forthcom
ing).
Moreover,
therapid
increasein
sanctionseverity
experiencedin
many
jurisdictionsover
thelast
decadepresents
anopportunity
fora
neww
aveof
“naturalexperim
ent”deterrence
studiesw
hichuse
interruptedtim
eseries
asthe
primary
method
ofanalysis.
Incapacita
tion
--
Researchers
arem
orecertain
aboutthe
magnitude
and
characteristicsof
incapacitationeffects,
atleast
atthe
individuallevel,
butare
not
much
fartheralong
thandeterrence
researchersin
detectingthem
atthe
comm
unitylevel.
Arecently
publishedbook
byF
ranklinZ
imring
andG
ordon
Haw
kins(1995)
shows
howdifferences
inprison
populationgrow
thrates
between
statescan
beused
toassess
combined
incapacitationand
deterrent
effects.T
heauthors
usefour
differentm
ethodsto
estimate
what
California
crime
ratesw
ouldhave
beenduring
the1980s,
without
thatstate’s
rapidincrease
in
incarceration,concluding
thatthe
marginal
impact
issom
ewhere
aroundthree
or
fourfelonies
ayear
preventedby
eachadditional
inmate.
Sim
ilaranalyses
could
bedone
forother
statesto
seeif
theyproduced
similar
results.F
urthermore,
sincem
anynew
mandatory
sentencingor
waiver
laws
arequite
specificas
tothe
typeof
offenderthey
target,age
specificoffense
(onlyfound
inN
IBR
S)
orarrest
datacan
beused
toisolate
theincapacitation
anddeterrent
impacts
ofsuch
laws.
Measuring
Sentencing
Impact
-12
-February
5,1996
Using
Extant
Data
Peter
W.G
reenwood
Of
course,w
eneed
toknow
more
aboutthe
crime
generationprocess
inorder
to
betterunderstand
howsentencing
works.
The
narrowstatem
entis:
“What’s
lambda?”
The
broaderstatem
entincludes
thingslike:
What
fractionof
crimes
are
comm
ittedby
professionalcrim
inalsw
ell-describedby
alam
bdam
odel?W
hat
fractionare
“demand-pull”
crimes
andthus
subjectto
replacement,
nom
atter
who
islocked
up(e.g.
howm
anym
urdersare
basicallya
consequenceof
our
spending$30
billiona
yearon
ablack
market
forcocaine
andnot
reallya
functionof
thefact
thatsom
epeople
havea
positivelam
bda)?A
nd,the
last
categoryw
ouldbe
something
like:fraction
ofcrim
escom
mitted
bypeople
who
basicallyare
notcrim
inals(or
weren’t
beforethat
crime).
Those
arecrim
esthat
sentencingcould
neverreally
hopeto
affect(unless
onebelieves
indeterrence,
andthat
deterrencew
orkseven
onpeople
who
donot
thinkof
themselves
as
criminals,
includingpeople
who
suddenlyget
swept
upin
drunkenbraw
ls,etc.).
Impacts
of
guid
elines
or
oth
erco
ntro
lson
discretio
n--
Changes
incrim
e
ratesare
notthe
onlyoutcom
epeople
may
beinterested
inthat
canresult
from
sentencingreform
s.C
onsiderthe
example
ofnew
mandatory
sentences,or
restrictionson
pleabargaining.
The
firstquestion
ofinterest
inthe
overburdened
anddiscretionary
environment
ofm
osturban
courtstoday
ishow
thenew
policy
isbeing
implem
ented?In
what
kindsof
casesis
itbeing
appliedand
where
isit
not?W
hatis
thereaction
ofthe
defensebar?.
What
hashappened
toplea
rates
andthe
number
ofjury
trials.A
reacquittal
ratesup?
These
ques.tionsshould
be
answered
with
OB
TS
oraggregate
crime
andsentencing
data,before
itis
appropriateto
startlooking
forim
pactson
crime
rates.
6.C
OS
T-B
EN
EF
ITS
TU
DIE
S
There
areat
leasttw
ovaluable
kindsof
cost-effectiv
eness
work
that
need
tobe
doneO
neco
mpares
differentsen
tencin
glaw
s(different
kindsof
app
les)to
Measuring
Sentencing
Impact
-13
-F
ebruary5,
1996U
singE
xtantD
ataP
eterW
.Greenw
ood
identifydifferences
inco
stsand
benefits.If
we
aregoing
tohave
aT
hree
Strikes
law,
howdoes
itaffect
the
ou
tcom
esif
burglaryis
includedas
astrike,
orif
strikesare
removed
orignored
afterso
me
periodw
ithno
newconvictions?
The
second
com
pares
apples
ando
rang
es.D
oesa
dollarsp
ent
onsen
tencin
gdo
more
orless
toreduce
crime
thana
dollarsp
ent
ondrug
treatmen
t,p
arent
training,or
hiringm
orepolice?
Both
types
ofan
alysis
aren
ecessaryif
we
are
goingto
move
beyondthe
pointof
consideringeach
pro
posed
senten
cing
lawin
a
vacuum;
asif
itw
erethe
onlyalternative
tonot
doinganything
abou
tcrim
eat
all.
An
analy
sisof
California’s
Three
Strike
lawestim
atedit
would
cost
the
Crim
inalJu
sticesy
stemabout
$16,000for
eachserio
us
crime
prev
ented
bythe
law(G
reenwood
et.al,
1994).A
sub
sequ
ent
studyconcluded
thatan
appropriatelyd
esign
edand
targeted
paren
ttraining
programm
ightbe
several
ord
ersof
magnitude
more
cost
effective(G
reenwood,
Model,
Rydell,
andC
hiesa,
1996).T
hereneed
sto
bem
oreexperim
entationw
ithdifferent
meth
od
sof
presen
ting
thisinform
ationto
policym
akers
andth
eg
eneral
public.T
he
Deliberative
Polling
effortsof
Dr.
James
Fishkin
(1995)at
the
University
of
Tex
asare
agood
example
ofthis
kindof
work.
7.IN
SU
MM
AR
Y:
TH
EB
IGID
EA
S
Implem
entatio
nan
dIm
pacts
of
Sen
tencin
gC
om
missio
ns:
These
have
provedto
bem
ostdurable
andreliable
structurefor
reform.
Experiences
and
lessonsfrom
leadingstates
shouldbe
made
availableto
others.
Measuring
Sentencing
Impact
-14
-F
ebruary5,
1996U
singE
xtantD
ataP
eterW
.Greenw
ood
Implem
entatio
nan
dIm
pacts
of
Man
dato
ryS
enten
cing
and
Waiv
er
Law
s:W
hichcases
areaffected;?
How
?Im
pacton
courts,corrections,
and
crime?
Com
parativecase
studiesw
ouldbe
informative.
Marg
inal
Incap
acitation
and
Deterren
tE
ffects:W
hatare
thenet
effectson
crime
ofchanging
pen
alties?
Estim
ating
the
costs
and
ben
efitsof
alte
rnativ
esen
tencin
glaw
s
com
pared
tooth
er
crime-co
ntro
loptio
ns.
Inte
rmedia
teS
anctio
ns
Implem
entatio
nan
dIm
pacts:
Process
and
outcome
evaluations;L
essonsfor
otherju
risdictio
ns.
Com
pariso
ns
of
Relativ
eS
enten
cing
Sev
erity,
Allo
cation
and
Efficien
cy
across
States:
Multiple
measures,
consistentlyco
nstru
ctedover
time;
big
questionis
howto
getpeople
topay
attention.
Measuring
Sentencing
Impact
-15
-February
5,1996
Using
Extant
Data
Peter
W.G
reenwood
RE
FE
RE
NC
ES
Blum
stein,A
lfred,Jacqueline
Cohen,
andD
anielN
agin,(eds),
Deterren
cean
dIncapacitation
:E
stimating
theE
ffectsof
Crim
inalS
anctionson
Crim
eR
ates,N
ationalA
cademy
ofS
ciences,W
ashington,D
.C.,
1978.
Dilulio,
JohnJ.,
andA
nneM
.P
iehi,“D
oesP
risonP
ay?”U
npublishedm
anuscript.P
rinceton,N
J.:P
rincetonU
niversity,C
enterof
Dom
esticand
Com
parativeP
olicyS
tudies.1991.
Fishkin,
James,
The
Voice
ofthe
People,
Yale
University
Press,
1995.
Frase,
Richard,
“State
Sentencing
Guidelines:
Still
Going
Strong,”
Judicatu
re,V
ol78,
NO
.4,
1995,pp.
173-179.
Greenw
ood,P
eterW
.,K
arynE
.M
odel,C
.P
eterR
ydell,and
James
Chiesa,
The
Cost-
Effectiveness
of
Early
Interventionas
aS
trategyfo
rR
educingV
iolentC
rime,
forthcoming,
1996),R
AN
D,
Santa
Monica,
CA
.
Greenw
ood,P
eterW
.,C
.P
eterR
ydell,A
llanA
brahamse,
JonathanP.
Caulkins,
James
Chiesa,
Káryn
E.
Model,
Stephen
P.K
lein,T
hreeS
trikesand
You’re
Out:
Estim
atedB
enefitsand
Costs
of
California’s
New
Mandatory
Sentencing
Law
,M
R-509-R
C,
RA
ND
.S
antaM
onica,C
A.
1994.
Levitt,
Steven
D.,
“The
Effect
ofP
risonP
opulationS
izeon
Crim
eR
ates:E
videnceF
romP
risonO
vercrowding
Litigation,”
Quarterly
Journ
alof
Econom
ics,(forthcom
ing1996).
Tonry,
Michael,
Sentencing
Matters,
Oxford
University
Press,
New
York.
1996
Zedlew
ski,E
dwin,
Making
Confinem
entD
ecisions.R
esearchin
Brief,
Washington
D.C
..N
ationalInstitute
ofJustice,
1987.
Zim
ring,F
ranklinand
Gordon
Haw
kins,In
capacitatio
n:
Pen
alC
onfinement
andthe
Restraint
of
Crim
e,O
xfordU
niversityP
ress,N
ewY
ork,1995.
Managing
Correctional
Change
inC
omm
unityC
orrections
Michael
P.Jacobson,
Com
missioner
New
York
City
Departm
entofC
orrectionN
ewY
orkC
ityD
epartment
ofProbation
IIntroduction
Perhapsthe
greatest changein
storefor
comm
unitycorrections
overthe
nextdecadew
ill
come
asa
resultof
theV
iolentC
rime
Control
andL
awE
nforcement
Act
of1994
(hereinafter
referredto
asthe
Crim
eB
ill).Specifically,
thefact
thatthe
entirefield
ofcom
munity
correctionsdoes
notexist
asfar
asthe
legislationand
potentialappropriations
areconcerned
(regardlessof
theparticular
versionof
theB
illor
levelofappropriation)
not onlym
akesa
huge
symbolic
statementbut w
illalso
havevery
realconsequences
forthatpart of
thecrim
inaljustice
systemw
hichsupervises
overthree-quarters
ofeveryone
undercorrectional
supervisionin
this
country.This
absencew
illhave
two
important
andparadoxical
consequences.T
hefirst
will
be
thatsignificantly
more
peoplew
illbe
placedunder
comm
unitysupervision
asa
resultof
the
Crim
eB
ill.T
hereare
anum
berof
reasonsfor
this.W
hileadditional
policew
ill,of
course,
generatem
orearrests,
theprim
aryreason
forincreasesin
comm
unitysupervision
will
stemfrom
thestates’
totalinability
toconstruct
enoughprison
bedsto
dealw
iththe
Truth-in-Sentencing
provisionof
theB
ill.In
aneffort
tosecure
prisonbuilding
funds,m
anystates
(New
York
certainlyincluded)
arepassing
legislationw
hichextend
sentencessignificantly
fora
number
of
crimes
while
simultaneously
severelyrestricting
orelim
inatingparole.
Ina
rationalw
orld,the
futureincreases
inprison
populationw
ouldbe
matched
exactlyby
theplanned
prisongrow
th.
This
will
nothappen.
Itwill
nothappenbecause
evenif m
oststatesm
akethe
analyticaleffortrequired
tom
ake
anaccurate
projectionof
priorgrow
th,the
prevailingpolitical
sentiment
onincreasing
the
2
amount
andlength
ofincarceration
will
resultn
thenum
bersof
peoplerequiring
aprison
bed
outstrippingthe
currentand
plannedgrow
th.ftw
illalso
nothappen
becauselegislation
atthe
statelevel
increasingsentences
andrestricting
orelim
inatingparole
ishappening
now.
The
timing
ofthe
federalgovernm
ent appropriatingthe
money,
gettingit
tothe
states,follow
edby
thedesign
andconstruction
ofnew
prisonsis
yearsout.
There
(honw
illbe
anim
mediate
and
growing
demand
forprisons
overthe
nextseveral
yearsw
hichstates
will
notbe
ableto
accomm
odate.ft
will
beaccom
modated
throughincreased
useof
comm
unitysupervision.
Th
secondm
ajorconsequence
oftheabsence
of comm
unitycorrections
fromthe
Crim
e
Bill
isthat,
atthe
same
time
thenum
bersof
peopleunder
comm
unitysupervision
will
be
increasing,thefunding
allottedfor these
servicesw
illbesignificantly
decreasingdue
totw
overy
significant economic
orfinancial
events.O
neis
thatthe
currentlyassum
edfunding
forprison
expansionw
illnot
materialize
inthe
amounts
orin
theperiod
oftim
ew
hichare
currently
planned.1
Secondly,w
hilefederal
fundsw
illbe
increasingfor
stateprison
expansion,the
balancedbudget am
endment
(whichever
onefinally
passes)w
illforce
statesto
dramatically
cut
otherservices
asthey
seekto
replacelost
federaldollars.
Inaddition,
statesw
illhave
to
putup
am
atchfor
theC
rime
Bill
fundsand
will
haveto
completely
fundthe
operatingcosts
of
newprisons
sincethe
Crim
eB
illw
illnot
providethis
money.
One
servicew
herestates
will
undoubtedlycut
tooffset
federalfunding
cutsas
well
asto
payfor
prisonstaff
iscom
munity
corrections.It
hasalm
ostno
constituency;its
importance
issym
bolicallyand
politically
‘There
area
number
ofreasons
why
theam
ountof
fundsavailable
will
change,the
most
obviousbeing
thatthese
funds,like
allothers
will
bereduced
throughthe
termof
theB
illdue
tobudgetcuts.
Additionally,
usingthe
recentpast asa
guideto
thetim
elinessofstates
receivingany
fundsfrom
theB
illinspires
littleconfidence
thatfuture
appropriationsw
illhappen
onschedule.
3
diminished
byits
exclusionfrom
theC
rime
Bill;
andthe
statesprovide
most
ofthe
country’s
comm
unitycorrections
funding.T
herefore,com
munity
supervisionagencies
will
besubjected
tosignificant:,
non-programm
aticfunding
decreasesas
itsnum
bersdram
aticallyincrease.
There,
then,is
theparadoxical
andultim
atelytautological
situationin
which
comm
unity
correctionsw
illfind
itself,A
combination
ofactionsby
thefederal
andstate
governments
will
causethe
number
ofpeople
undercom
munity
supervisionto
grow,
anda
different combination
ofevents
bythose
same
governments
will
resultin
drasticatlyreduced
fundingcausing
comm
unitycorrections
agenciesto
betotally
unpreparedfor
thesignificant increases
which
will
come
overthe
next severalyears.
Forinstance,
inthe
most recentbudget subm
ittedto
theState
Legislature
byN
ewY
ork’sG
overnorPataki
—a
scenarioI
believew
illbe
repeatedin
states
acrossthe
countryover
thenext
severalyears
--
herecom
mends
increasingprison
bedsby
9,000.T
hisw
ouldbe
financedby
$490m
illionin
Crim
eB
illfunds.
Simultaneously
with
this
increase,the
Governor
isalso
proposinga
25%reduction
inthe
fundingN
ewY
orkState
providesfor
probation.T
hereis
almost
nochance
thestate
will
getthis
amount
offunds
from
theC
rime
Bill
andthe
fundingfor
operatingcosts
hasnot
yetbeenappropriated
bythe
state.
Yet
theprisons
will
bebuilt
andprobation
will
becut.
But
thetautological
consequencesnow
become
evenm
oreinsidious.
With
thealm
ost
complete
abandonment
ofsupport
forcom
munity
correctionsat
thefederal
level(executive
as
well
aslegislative)
andthe
coming
decreasein
supportat
thestate
level,the
futureof
the
comm
unitycorrections
fieldis
fairlyclear
andbleak.
As
caseloadsgrow
andfunding
shrinks,
theoccasional
evaluationw
illreveal—
not surprisingly—
thatinterm
sofeffectiveness,how
ever
detined,com
munity
correctionsis
likelyto
befound
wanting.
Those
Findingsw
illthen
simply
4
beadded
tothe
arsenalof
reasonsw
hichw
illbeused
tow
ithdrawsupport from
thefield,so
that
thedow
nward
cyclew
illcontinue.
Itis
inthis
depressing,butI
thinkiirly
accuratecontextthatany
discussionof
managing
changeIn
comm
unitycorrections
must
takeplace.
Iam
hopefulthat
recognizingthe
predicament of
comm
unitycorrections,
asanticipated
here,canlead
tointelligentpolicy
planning
inadvance
ofthese
problems.
We
will
needthe
same
sortof
discussionsto
occuraround
comm
unitycorrections
asis
nowtaking
placeam
ongcrim
inologistsand
criminal
justice
practitionersw
ithregard
toanticipated
increasesin
theyouth
populationm
ostlikely
tocom
mit
crime.
Managing
changein
anenvironm
entof financial
scarcityw
itheven
more
scarcityon
the
horizonw
illrequire
comm
unitycorrections
ageiies
tofocus
theirresources
asintelligently
s.c
possiblew
iththe
goalof
achievingm
easurableand
understandablepublic
safetybenefits.
If
theseagencies
canshow
demonstrable
success,then
thefield
canbegin
toreverse
thetrend,and
theself-fulfilling
paradox,by
which
itis
nowbeing
undermined,
There
areseveral
areasw
hichshow
theprom
iseof
successthat
shouldbe
thefocus
of
resourcesand
research,B
eforeI
discussthese,
itisim
portanttodefine
successin
afield
where
successcan
bea
fairlyephem
eralconcept.
TIW
hatis
Success?
Measures
ofrecidivismand
especiallyviolent recidivism
shouldbe
thebaseline
measure
ofsuccess
forcom
munity
corrections.T
hereis
currentlya
debatein
thefield
aboutw
hether
otherm
easuresw
hichare
currentlynot
usedto
demonstrate
succcsswshould
beused
as
measures
ofsuccess
essentiallyreplacing
recidivism.
They
might
includethe
number
of
days
5
drugor
alcoholfree,
numbers
enrolledin
jobtraining
orem
ployment
programs,
comm
unity
service,etc.
While
allthese
areuseful
anddem
onstratevarious
levelsofsuccess
(orefficiency
oreffectiveness)
Ido
notbelieve
thatforeither
substantiveor
politicalreasons,
theseshould
be
theprim
arym
easuresof
successfor
comm
unitycorrections
agencies.R
ather,it
isrecidivism
which
shouldbe
theprim
arym
easureof
successfor
comm
unitycorrections
agencies.
Ultim
ately,it
iscrim
e,and
especiallyviolentcrim
e,w
hichthe
publicis
concernedabout.
The
amount
andtypes
ofcrim
ew
hichare
comm
ittedby
peopleunder
comm
unitycorrection
supervisionis
aLegitim
ateconcern.
The
attempt to
usea
hostofsurrogate
measures
ofsuccess
givesthe
impression
thatthefield
itself hasabandoned
thenotion
ofcrime
preventionand
public
safetyand
isinventing
otherm
easuresto
ensurew
successu.It
won’t
fly.
How
ever,the
useof
recidivismas
abaseline
measure
ofsuccessm
ustbeexacting.
That
is,there
neednot
bean
onuson
comm
unitycorrections
thatit
hasto
havea
lower
rateof
recidivismover
time
fora
similarly
incarceratedpopulation.
Tnsom
ecases,
itonlyhas
tohave
asim
ilarrate
tothe
populationw
ithw
hichit
isbeing
compared
aslong
asthere
areother
associatedbenefits.
Forexam
ple,M
ackenzie2
hasfound
that,in
comparing
New
York’s
boot
camp
populationagainst
asim
ilarparole
population,there
were
nosignificant
differencesin
terms
ofreincarceration.
This
finding(despite
some
small
positivefindings
aboutthe
roleof
aftercareprogram
ming)
hasbeen
widely
interpretedas
aprogram
failure.
On
thecontrary,
Tview
thisfinding
quitepositively.
Why?
Because
sinceits
inception
in1987,
thestale’s
bootcam
pprogram
hassaved
New
York
Stateover
$354m
illionw
hile
2MacK
enzie,D
orisL
aytonand
Clair,
Souryal-
Multisitc
Evaluation
of ShockIncarceration.
National
Instituteof
JusticeR
eport.W
ashingtonD
.C.,
1994
6
creas1ngthe
riskto
publicsafety
byearly
releasefrom
prison?W
ouldithave
beenbetter
for
theprogram
todem
onstrateincreased
publicsafet”
benefits?A
bsolutely.Is
itnecessary,
a’
longas
asavings
ofthis
magnitude
resultsfr
ria
programthat
iscontinuing
tokeep
reincarcerationrates
constant?A
bsolutelynot.
Inthis
case,recidivism
canand
doesplay
an
important
rolein
showing
howachieving
Financialsavings
throughearly
releaseand
intensiveparole
programs
hadno
increasedpublic
safetyrisk.
Similarly,com
munity
correctionscan
andshould
compare
rhcirpast andpresent
recidivismrates
inorder
tobolster
publicpolicy
arguments
ontheir
behalf.If
acom
munity
correctionsprogram
candem
onstratethat
some
neww
ayof
doingbusiness
canin
factreduce
recidivismrates
(again,especially
violentrecidivism
)for
apopulation
thathas
historically
recidivatedata
higherrate,
two
veryim
portantthingscan
follow.
The
firstis
thattheprogram
canm
akea
casefor
newfunds
basedon
increasedpublic
safety(a
casew
hichprisons
arcalm
ost
entirelyincapable
ofm
aking).Secondly,
andrelated
tothe
first,is
theaccom
panyingfiscal
argument
thatless
recidivismtranslates
intovery
realand
significantbudget
savings.
The
casefor
increaseduse
ofand
fundingfor
comm
unitycorrections
must
bem
ade
primarily
inpublic
safetyterm
sand
onlyço
ndarlly
interm
sof
financialsavings
orother
measures
of“success.”
Thus,
comm
unitysupervision
programs
mustargue
either:a)
thatthey
increasepublic
safetycom
paredto
theirow
npast
perfonnances;b)
thatthey
increasepublic
safetycom
paredto
asim
ilarlyincarcerated
population;orc)
that theirprogram
sdo
notincrease
3SLate
ofN
ewY
orkD
epartment
ofC
orrectionalServices
andD
ivisionof
Parole,Ih
çven
thA
nnualS
hockLeaislative
Report.
1995,pp
40
7
therisk
topublic
safety,w
hilesaving
fundselsew
herein
thecrim
inaljustice
systemS
Attem
ptingto
make
apublic
casefor com
munity
correctionsw
hichdoes
not directlyand
forcibly
addresspublic
safetyand
recidivismw
illcontribute
tothe
furtherm
arginalizatinnof
thefield
inan
environment
which
isalready
neativclypredisposed
tocom
munity
supervision.
Thave
thusfar
arguedthat:
1)acom
binationof governm
entaland
fiscalpolicies,
asw
ell
ascurrent
publicattitudes
toward
comm
unitysupervision,
arccreating
anenvironm
entw
here
comm
unitycorrections
will
befurther
defundedw
hilethose
underits
supervisionw
illIncrease
dramatically
and;2)
forcom
munity
correctionsto
surviveas
areasonable,
responsibleand
effectivealternative
toincarceration,
it must confrontand
employ
measures
ofrecidivism
asthe
primary
indicatorsof
success.
IIIW
hati&to
beD
one
There
areseveral
strategiesthat
comm
unitycorrections
agenciescan
embrace
inorder
touse
theirresources
most
productively.If
thesestrategies
proveeffective,
theycan
laya
foundationfor
preservingand
expandingsuch
programs.
The
firstinvolves
identifyingthe
populationw
hichreceives
thebulk
ofcom
munity
supervisionresources,
Com
munity
correctionsagencies
shouldrefocus
theirresources
onthose
who
arethe
most
potentiallyviolent.
This
may
appearcounter-intuitive
sincecom
munity
supervisionw
orkersdo
notas
arule
likew
orkingw
iththis
populationfor
avariety
ofobvious
reasons.H
owever,
itis
thispopulation
which
disproportionatelycauses
them
ostharm
inthe
comm
unityand
alsoleads
tohighercosts
oncethey
arere-arrested.
Furthermore,
itisw
iththis
populationthat
comm
unitycorrections
agencieshave
thegreatest
likelihoodof
succeeding.
8
Severalm
cta-analyses4
ofthe
existingliterature
anddata
onoffender
treatment
indicatesthat
ayoung
populationw
itha
highlikelihood
ofcom
mitting
futureviolentcrim
escan
bercceptive
tostructural
andintensive
interventions.
Severalthings
must
happenif
thisviolence
pronepopulation
isto
become
apriority
populationfor
comm
unitysupervision.
First,new
riskinstrum
entshave
tobe
developedas
a
way
ofpredicting
futureviolent
crime.
This
hasalready
beendone
inN
ewY
orkC
ityand
thoughit
isa
laborand
relativelycost
intensiveproposition,
itis
crucialfor
carefultargeting.
This
typeof
classificationinstrum
entshould
includefar
more
thansim
plythe
instantarrest
or
convictioncharge
(researchin
New
York
City
Indicatesthat
thisvariable
alonedoes
not
particularlyhelp
topredict future
violentcriminality).
Once
thepopulation
isidentified,policies
andprogram
sshould
beput
inplace
tospecifically
addresscrim
inogenicneed
overthe
shortand
longterm
.In
New
York
City’s
ProbationD
epartment
thishas
consistedof
small
structured
groupw
orkfor
thishigh
riskpopulation
incognitive-behavioralscssions.
The
sessionsm
eet8
-
9tIm
esa
month
fortw
ohours
asession
andlast
for8
months.
Itis
followed
byrelapse
preventionw
orkboth
onan
individualas
well
asgroup
basis.T
hisis
cicarlynot
theonly
method
byw
hichthis
populationcould
behandled,
The
most
important
thingis
toprioritize,
identifyand
work
Intensivelyw
itha
highrisk
orviolence
pronepopulation,keeping
inm
indthe
expressgoal
ofreducing
recidivismand
especiallyviolent
recidivism(and
thusachieving
a
secondarygoal
ofreal
court,jail
andprison
bedsavings).
New
York’s
programw
hichis
slightlyless
thantw
oyears
oldhas,
thoughstill
inthe
preliminary
stage,thus
farreduced
the
4Gcndrcau,
Pauland
D.A
.A
ndrews.
‘Tertiary
Prevention:W
hat canthe
Meta-A
nalysisof
theO
ffenderT
reatment
Literature
Tell
Us
About
What
Works.’
Canadian
Journalof
Crim
inology32
(1990):173-184
9
rateof
violent recidivismam
ongprobationcrs
byalmost50%
compared
toa
matched
historical
samp
le.5
Making
thedecision
torefocus
resources,population
andpolicy
forcesa
rargeof
very
difficultdecisions
forcom
munity
correctionsorganizations.
With
agreatly
disproportionate
amount
ofresources
goingto
thishigh
riskpopulation,
therew
illbe
farfew
erresources
remaining
todeal
with
alow
errisk
(andpossibly
more
deserving)population.
Ineffect,
comm
unitycorrections
managers
would
bem
akinga
decisionto
essentiallyignore
or,at
most,
work
minim
allyw
ithother
populations.It
isa
verypainful
decisionto
make
andeven
more
so
forstaff
toaccept.
It cancertainly
createpolitical and
bureaucraticproblem
s.It
is,how
ever,
theright
decisionto
make
givenpresent
budgetaryconstraints.
The
attempt
bycom
munity
correctionsagencies
todo
something
foreveryone
undersupervision
(evenif
itis
onlya
myth
andnot
thereality)
istotally
misguided.
The
fieldis
simply
notnow
beingfunded
ina
way
where
thisis
eventheoretically
possible.T
henotion
ofspending
relativelyequal
amounts
of
resourceson
everyoneunder
supervisionresults
Inthe
fictionthatcom
munity
correctionstends
todo
everythingfor
everybodyand
canresult
inthe
realityof
achievingnothing
foranybody.
The
peoplew
hoare
notseenw
ithinsuch
resourceintensive
programs
shouldbe
handled
eitherthrough
technologyor
some
combination
oftechnology
andm
inimal
staff.In
New
York
City,
automated
reportingK
iosksw
ithhand
geometry
will
beused
totrack
andm
onitortens
of
thousandsof
cases,so
asto
allowresources
tobe
usedon
theviolence
pronepopulation,
This
‘Preliminary
Analysis
ofD
OC
Blue
Group
Intervention.N
ewY
orkC
ityD
epartment
ofP
robation1995
10
Isnot
ideal;it
isnot
thcw
ayit
shouldbe
ina
perfectw
orld.E
veryoneunder
comm
unity
supervisionshould
havesubstantial
resourcesdevoted
tothem
.T
hisw
ouldm
akesense.
How
ever,this
isnot
atpresent
what
isgoing
tohappen.
No
amount
ofsim
plycom
paringthe
costsof
Incarcerationw
iththe
costsof
comm
unitysupervisiO
nis
goingto
make
ithappen.’
IVIn
Sum
The
casefor
identifyingthe
most violem
pronepopulation
anddevoting
toitthe
majority
ofavailable
resourcesis
asfollow
s:
1)it
clearlyidentifies
apopulation
thatthe
comm
unityis
mostconcerned
about;
2)It
focusesboth
comm
unitycorrections
agenciesas
well
asthe
publicon
specific
publicsafety
goalsw
hichw
illhave
significant secondarycost
benefits;
3)It
will,
ifsuccessful,
decreasepast
ratesof
recidivismand
will
quitepossibly
showfavorable
resultsw
hencom
paredto
asim
ilarlyincarcerated
population;
4)It w
illultim
atelyhave
thebenefit ofallow
ingcom
munity
correctionsagencies
to
make
them
osteffective
casepossible
topreserve
andexpand
resources,
especiallyover
thenext
severalyears
asgovernm
entsbegin
tofurther
defund
comm
unitycorrections
and
5)It
will
allowresearchers
toclearly
measure
successor
failure.
The
difficultyof
thisrefocusing
oftarget
groupsand
resourcesought
notbe
underestimated,
It willencountertrem
endousresistance
froma
varietyof actors
andinstitutions,
6Again,
thecost
orbudget savings
argument w
illonly
work
ifcoupled
with
apublic
safety
caseas
well.
The
factthat probation
oranother
alternativeto
incarcerationis
cheaperthan
jailor
prisonby
Itselfis
meaningless.
Ifsuccessful,
apublic
safety/budgetsavings
argumentn
resultin
fundsbeing
moved
frominstitutional
tocom
munity
corrections.
Ii
bothinside
andoutside
comm
unitycorrections.
indeed,it
may
noteven
work,
althoughN
ew
I!Y
orkC
ity’spositive
experience’thus
farsuggests
excellentpotential.
Itis
anidea
which
must
betried,
ifthe
fieldof
comm
unitycorrections
doesriot
make
significantefforts
tochange
its
-focus,
toput
itselfonthe
linefor
achievingclear
andm
easurablepublic
safetybenefits, then
the
coming
decadew
illalm
ostsurely
seethe
systematic
transferof
fundsfrom
comm
unity
correctionsto
institutionalcorrections.
And
thatw
ouldbe
thbiggest
failureof
all,
II13•IIt’I
1The
New
York
City
ProbationD
epartmentis
attempting
them
ostextensivereform
sof
any
crunmaljustice
agencythat
Iknow
of.W
hilethere
stillrem
ainsa
whole
host oftheoretical
and
Upractical
issuesregarding
programdevelopm
entand
implem
entation,initial
resultsare
very
encouraging.
AS
entencingand
Corrections
Research
Agenda.
ME
AS
UR
ING
SE
NT
EN
CIN
GO
UT
CO
ME
ST
HR
OU
GH
EX
PE
RIM
EN
TS
AC
onceptP
aper
forthe
National
InstituteofJustice
U.S.
Departm
entofJustice
By
Doris
Layton
MacK
enzieD
epartment
ofCrim
inologyand
Crim
inalJustice
University
of Maryland
February,1996
/3
79
ME
AS
UR
ING
SE
NT
EN
CIN
GO
UT
CO
ME
ST
HR
OU
GH
EX
PE
RIM
EN
TS
Within
thecrim
inal justiceresearch
andpolicy
comm
unitiesdebate
continuesabout
theeffectiveness
ofvarious
approachesto
reducingcrim
eand
insuringpublic
safety.W
ithoutcredible
scientificresearch
andevaluation,
ajustice
systemthat
isso
highlypolitical
necessarilyresponds
tothe
ebband
flowof
publicpressure.
Despite
thefact
thatthe
National
Instituteof
Justiceand
theO
fficeof
JusticeP
rograms
havefought
valiantlyto
changethis
situation,obstacles
stillexist
thatlim
itthe
useof
scienceto
provideobjective
answers
tothe
criticalquestions
incorrections.
Consider
thefollow
ingcontrast
with
thefield
ofm
edicine.N
oone
would
considerreleasing
anew
drugor
usinga
newm
edicalprocedure
unlesscarefully
designedclinical
trialshad
beencom
pletedto
provideevidence
ofthe
effectivenessof
them
edicineor
procedure.T
hesam
ecannot
besaid
ofcorrectional
research.T
hree-strikes
sentencinglaw
s,boot
camps,
anddrug
courtshave
spreadthroughout
thenation.
While
allof
thesem
aybe
exciting,innovative
andpotentially
effectivem
ethodsof
solvingcorrectional
problems
thatplague
us,atthis
pointthere
islittle
researchevidence
tosupport
suchrapid
proliferation.T
oooften,
we
permit
newcorrectional
programs
toproliferate
basedon
anecdotalevidence,
speculation,hunches,
publicattitudes
(oftennaive),
andsw
eepingpolitical
endorsements.
When
we
compare
researchin
correctionsand
incrim
inal justicein
general,it
becomes
obviousthat
therespect
forresearch,use
ofinform
ationfrom
researchand
supportforresearch
fallsw
ellbelow
thatof
otherfields.
The
National
Instituteof
Justiceshould
continueto
emphasize
theneed
forstrong
researchm
ethodologyto
answer
thequestions
that plaqueour
correctionalsystem
s.
1.E
xperimental
andQ
uasi-Experim
entalD
esigns
Throughout
thecorrectional
systemthere
isa
criticalneed
forresearch
usingrigorous
researchdesigns.
Experim
entationw
ithrandom
assignment
ofindividuals
totreatm
entand
controlgroups
permits
theclearest
interpretationof
causeand
effectrelationships.
Suchdesigns
enableresearchers
torule
outalternative
explanationsfor
theresults.
But
randomassignm
entof
subjectsis
not theonly
designthat perm
itsresearchers
toexam
inecause
andeffect
relationships.
Incrim
inology,control
groupdesigns
sodom
inateour
thoughtsthat
tom
anypeople
theyseem
synonymous
with
experimentation.
Researchers
may
giveup
attempting
anythinglike
anexperim
entin
fieldsettings
where
controlgroups
arenot
available.A
sa
result,they
endup
with
more
imprecision
thanis
necessary.In
many
naturalsettings
something
likean
experimental
designcan
beused.
Suchsituations
arereferred
toas
quasi-experimental
designs(C
ookand
Cam
pbell,1979;
Cam
pbelland
Stanley,1963).
While
thesedesigns
lackthe
fullcontrol
overthe
schedulingof
experimental
conditionsw
hichm
akesa
trueexperim
entpossible,
theyenable
researchersto
ruleout
some
threatsto
validity,and
evenw
ithoutrandom
assignment
itis
possibleto
infercauses
andeffects.
Even
with
controlledstudies
we
must
cautionpeople
notto
expecttoo
much.
Too
often,w
eare
disappointedin
sciencebecause
we
haveled
othersto
believein
theonce-and-for-all
definitiveexperim
ent.W
em
ustincrease
ourtim
eperspective
andrecognize
thatcontinuous,
multiple
experimentation
ism
oretypical.
The
experiments
we
dotoday
will
needreplication
andcross-validation
atother
times
andunder
otherconditions
beforethey
canbecom
ean
establishedpart
ofscience,
beforethey
canbe
interpretedw
ithconfidence.
How
everthere
aresteps
thatcanbe
takento
maxim
ize-
theinform
ationthat
we
obtainfrom
studies.P
articularlyim
portantin
facilitatingour
progressw
illbe:
(1)close
cooperationbetw
eenresearchers
andpractitioners;
(2)the
coordinationof
demonstrations
projectsand
research;and,
(3)use
ofm
ulti-siteprojects
andconsortium
sof
researchers.
2.P
racticeand
Science:
The
Importance
ofC
loseC
ooperationB
etween
Researchers
andP
ractitioners
Practiceand
scienceare
notopposites.
Both
arethe
resultof
agradual
accumulation
ofpossibilities
thatare
selectivelyretained,
theim
possibilitiesare
eliminated
byexperience
(Cook
andC
ampbell,
1979;C
ampbell
andStanley,
1963).T
hisperspective
leadsto
arespect
fortraditional
correctionalpractices.
Across
time,
many
differentapproaches
havebeen
tried,som
eapproaches
havew
orkedbetter
thanothers.
Ifthose
approachesw
hichw
orkedbetter
haveto
some
extentbeen
persistentlypracticed
bytheir
designersor
imitated
byothers
thenthe
practicesw
hichhave
emerged
may
representvaluable
andtested
subsetof
allpossible
practices.B
utthis
processof
evolutionis
imprecise
inthe
naturalsetting.
The
conditionsof
observationsare
farfrom
optimal.
What
survivesor
isretained
isdeterm
inedto
alarge
extentby
purechance.
Experim
entationenters
atthispoint
asa
means
ofsharpening
therelevance
ofthe
testing,probing,and
selectionprocess.
Thus,
experimentation
isnot
necessarilycontradictory
totraditional
wisdom
.Instead,
itis
arefining
processsuperim
posedupon
thevaluable
accumulations
ofintelligentpractice.
Advocacy
ofan
experimental
scienceof
correctionsthus
doesnot
imply
adoptinga
positionincom
patiblew
ithtraditional
wisdom
.
ASentencing
andC
orrectionsR
esearchA
gendaM
easuringSentencing
Outcom
esT
hroughE
xperiments
Page2
The
scientificm
ethodis
designedto
providea
way
tom
akeobservations
anddraw
conclusions.Som
eideas
beginw
ithpractice.
Forexam
ple,drug
courtshave
spreadthroughout
thenation,
notnecessarily
becauseresearchers
recomm
endedthe
programs
norbecause
theyw
erepolitically
popular.R
atherthese
courtsappear
toaddress
problems
recognizedby
thosew
how
orkin
thesystem
.R
apidprocessing
ofdrug
cases,m
ovingdrug
abusersout
ofinstitutions,
andcoordinating
thesupervision
andtreatm
entfor
offendersare
justsom
eof
theneeds
thecourts
were
designedto
address.T
heinnovative
ideafor
drugcourts
originatedfrom
thosew
orkingin
thefield.
Now
ithas
reacheda
stagew
herethere
isa
criticalneed
toexam
inew
hetherthe
goalsare
beingachieved.
Num
erousexperim
entalor
quasi-experimental
designscould
beused
tostudy
theeffectiveness
ofthe
drugcourts.
How
ever,there
arefactors
within
thesystem
thatreducethe
chancethat
thoseinvolved
indesigning
oradm
inisteringa
correctionalprogram
will
enthusiasticallyem
bracea
rigorousevaluation.
Anew
,innovative
butcostly
method
form
anagingfelons
may
bean
overwhelm
ingsuccess
inreducing
recidivism.
But
ifit
becomes
afailure
theagency,
staffand
administration
will
suffergreatly.
Are
theyw
illingto
takea
chanceand
trythe
newtechnique?
Failurescould
haveserious
consequencessuch
asprison
riotsor
heinouscrim
esfor
which
theyw
ouldhave
totake
responsibility.Selecting
the“m
odel”offenders
toparticipate,
orelim
inatingtraining
programs
ortreatm
entin
orderto
reducecosts
arejust
some
ofthe
techniquesthat
might
beused
tosolve
problems
thatarise.
Given
theexigency
ofthe
situationa
manager
must
make
suchdecisions.
The
resultis
disastrousfor
research.
An
evaluationcan
bea
gamble
forcorrectional
managers.
They
must
takea
chancethat
anevaluation
oftheir
favoredprogram
will
turnout
toshow
thatit
isnot
successful.T
hisbecom
eseven
more
criticalif
apolitician
hassupported
theprogram
asthe
latest“tough-on-crim
e”policy.
An
evaluationteam
frominside
theagency
will
behard
putto
becritical
ofthe
program.
Few“in-house”
researchersare
protectedenough
bytheir
agencyto
reportnegative
findingson
politicallypopular
programs
likedrug
courts,boot
camps
orthree-strikes.
An
outsiderw
hocom
esin
toevaluate
aprogram
haslittle
vestedinterest
indeveloping
theprogram
orin
helpingagency
personneldo
theirjobbetter.
Too
oftenthe
endconclusion
ofthe
evaluationis
critical.T
heresearcher
completes
thereport
with
some
recomm
endationsfor
changebut
thesound
biteheard
bythe
publicand
politiciansis
“Itdoesn’t
work.”
Itis
littlew
onderthat
many
agencypersonnel
viewevaluations
asthreatening
andnot
particularlyhelpful
tothem
.N
eitherparty
issatisfied
with
therelationship.
The
agencypersonnel
may
bethreatened
bythe
evaluationbecause
sooften
theresults
arecritical.
On
theother
hand,the
researcherdoes
notoften
getthe
opportunityto
ASentencing
andC
orrectionsR
esearchA
gendaM
easuringSentencing
Outcom
esT
hroughE
xperiments
Page3
helpdevelop
anew
andim
provedstrategy
forattacking
theproblem
.Ideally,
aclose
andcontinuing
relationshipw
oulddevelop
between
theresearcher
andthe
practitioners.T
herelationship
must
bedesigned
toprotect
theobjectivity
ofthe
research.O
new
ayto
promote
sucha
relationshipm
ightbe
totie
fundingfor
demonstration
projectsto
research.
3.C
oordinatingD
emonstration
Projects
andR
esearch
Asubstantial
amount
ofm
oneyin
the“C
rime
Bill”
hasbeen
allocatedfor
demonstration
projects.T
heseprogram
sw
illface
closescrutiny
anddem
andaccountability.
Itwill
requireclose
coordinationam
ongthose
distributingthe
fundsto
insurethat
thedem
onstrationprojects
arerigorously
evaluated.In
my
opinion,the
useof
demonstration
projectsw
ithouta
correspondingobjective
evaluationcan
belikened
tothe
oldsaying
“Give
am
ana
fish,he’ll
eatfor
aday;
teacha
man
tofish,
he’lleatfor
alifetim
e.”W
ithouta
carefullydesigned
evaluation,any
demonstration
projectis
onlyuseful
while
itexists--
while
itis
beingfed
money.
This
would
befine
ifthe
projectaddressed
ashort-term
problem.
We
couldsolve
theproblem
andm
oveon
toother
issuesof
concern.H
owever,
correctionshas
fewsuch
problems.
We
needto
learnsolutions
forthe
long-termproblem
sthat
we
confront.A
demonstration
projectthat
existsonly
aslong
asthe
money
isavailable,
butdoes
notteach
usw
hatw
orksto
accomplish
ourgoals,
hasextrem
elylim
itedlong-term
value.T
heproject
may
appearto
beeffective,
butw
ithouthard
scientificevidence
we
will
notbuild
ourknow
ledgebase.
An
environment
thatfosters
theuse
ofdem
onstrationsas
trialsin
researchw
illrequire
closecoordination
among
thosew
hofund
thedem
onstrationsprojects
andthose
who
fundthe
grantsfor
research.
4.M
ulti-Site
Projects
andR
esearcherC
onsortiums
Afinal
method
ofm
aximizing
thefindings
obtainedfrom
researchis
toincrease
theinteraction
among
researchers.M
ulti-siteprojects
havetw
om
ajoradvantages.
First,they
maxim
izethe
externalvalidity
ofthe
studyby
increasingthe
generalizability.Second,
multi-site
projectscan
bedesigned
toincrease
theinteraction
among
researchers.T
hisprovides
themthe
opportunityto
sharetheoretical
ideas,data
collectioninstrum
ents,and
analysistechniques.
Ifencouraged
byN
Hsuch
sharingw
ouldbe
possibleand
enablethe
replicationand
cross-validationthat
isnecessary
ifthe
resultsare
tobe
interpretedw
ithconfidence.
ASentencing
andC
orrectionsResearch
Agenda
Measuring
SentencingO
utcomes
Through
Experim
entsPage
4
Icanim
aginem
anydifferent
techniquesfor
developingsuch
researcherinteractions.
Aproject
may
haveone
principalinvestigator
who
works
with
localresearchers
(am
odelw
eused
inthe
multi-site
studyof
bootcam
pprisons).
Or
aseries
ofgrants
may
beaw
ardedto
differentprincipalinvestigators
who
arerequired
asa
conditionof
thegrant
toattend
Researcher
Consortium
meetings
todiscuss
andshare
theirprogress
(am
odelsim
ilarto
SpouseA
ssaultR
eplicationsexperim
ents).T
helater
requiresstrong
supervisionto
insurecoordination
andprogress.
Suchconsortium
salso
requirea
method
ofinsuring
thatthe
datacan
becom
binedfor
cross-siteanalysis.
Afurther
advantageof
suchresearch
collaborationis
thedesign
ofdata
collectioninstrum
ents.T
hisis
atim
econsum
ingand
costlyinitial
taskconfronting
many
investigators.In
ourbootcam
pw
orkw
eshared
theinstrum
entsw
ithother
jurisdictions.T
hishas
beenadvantageous
becauseit
hasperm
ittedcross-site
comparisons.
Once
thedata
arearchived
researchersw
illbe
ableto
combine
itto
doan
analysisw
itha
largerdata
set,thus
increasingthe
power
todetect
differences.
Consider
thefunding
thatappears
tobe
plannedfor
thedevelopm
entof
Drug
Courts,
Boot
Cam
psand
possiblyviolent
offenderprogram
s.T
heyprovide
keyexam
plesof
projectsthat
canbe
usedas
models
ofthe
way
researchcan
progress.T
henecessary
components
arein
placeto
combine
controlledexperim
ents,close
interactionsbetw
eenpractitioners
andresearchers,
demonstration
fundingthat
requiresevaluation,
andcooperative
multi-site
projects.W
eneed
todevelop
newm
odelsfor
encouragingthese
interactionsand
theuse
ofscience
tosolve
theproblem
sw
eface
(MacK
enzie,1996).
5.W
hatW
orks,W
hen,and
Fo
rW
hom?
The
“Nothing
Works”
erain
correctionsis
over(A
ndrews
etal.,
1990;Palm
er,1992;
Cullen
andG
ilbert,1983).
The
conclusionthatthere
was
noevidence
ofeffective
correctionalprogram
sw
asthe
result,in
part,of
thepoor
qualityof
theresearch
thatw
asdone
atthe
time.
Itis
notthat
highquality
programs
were
studiedw
ithrigorous
designs.R
ather,inadequate
programs
were
oftenstudied
with
substandardresearch
designs.In
mostcases,
thedesigns
didnotperm
itresearchersto
drawany
conclusionsaboutthe
effectivenessof
theprogram
understudy.
We
must
protectourselves
fromrepeating
sucha
dismal
record.
Today,
correctionaladm
inistratorsand
staffsearch
forcost
effectiveprogram
s--
programs
theycan
affordthat
will
make
adifference.
Only
thepoor
correctional
ASentencing
andC
orrectionsR
esearchA
gendaM
easuringSentencing
Outcom
esT
hroughE
xperiments
Page5
administrator
seestheir
wards
as“throw
away
people.T
heyw
antto
make
adifference
inthe
livesof
thesepeople.
Despite
thetight
budgets,crow
dedfacilities,
andrising
supervisioncaseloads,
theytry
toprovide
some
typeof
treatment
thatm
aypositively
changethe
offendersand
improve
theirchance
forsuccess
inthe
comm
unity.
Yet,
aconstellation
offactors
havem
ovedus
away
fromthe
focuson
individualsand
theneed
tochange
offenders.A
sSim
onand
Feeley(1992)
haveso
aptlyw
ritten,the
problems
ofcrow
dingand
‘gettough”sentencing
haveforced
usto
beconcerned
with
managing
populationsand
moving
aggregatesthrough
thesystem
.Interest
focuseson
howto
move
largegroups
ofindividuals
throughthe
correctionalsystem
without
threateningpublic
safety.W
ecan
seethis
changein
thefocus
ondeveloping
rapidassessm
entsof
therisks
andneeds
ofoffenders.
-
Research
hasuncovered
dozensof
factorsthat
arerelated
tocrim
inalactivities.
Individualfactors
include,am
ongothers,
impulsivity,
lowself-control, risk-taking,
rebelliousattitudes,
errorsin
thinking,beliefs
favoringlaw
violation,im
maturity,
retardedm
oraldevelopm
entand
aninability
totake
theperspective
ofothers.
Correctional
expertshave
designedprogram
sto
attempt
tochange
some
ofthese
characteristicsof
offenders.T
herationale
isthat
oncethese
factorsare
changedcrim
inalactivities
andother
antisocialbehavior
will
bereduced.
Some
particularlypopular
programs
arecalled
cognitiveskills
programs.
These
programs
attempt
tochange
thevalues,
morals,
andattitudes
ofoffenders
asan
intermediate
stepin
changingtheir
behavior.N
umerous
jurisdictionshave
initiatedthese
programs
inthe
hopethey
will
havea
positiveim
pact.A
ngerm
anagement,
drugtreatm
ent,parenting
classes,and
aftercareand
jobsupport
programs
arealso
popular.Such
programs
areperhaps
theeasiest
tostudy
with
controlledexperim
ents.O
urknow
ledgeabout
theeffectiveness
ofthese
programs
isseverely
limited.
What
hasbecom
eclear
frominvestigations
ofinterm
ediatesanctions
isthat
offendersare
notchanged
byincreased
control.Interm
ediatesanctions
may
be“Sm
artSentencing”
when
considerpartof
arational
andjust
sentencingsystem
.H
owever,
thereis
littleevidence
thatthe
controlaspects
ofsanctions
thatpermit
offendersto
remain
inthe
comm
unityactually
reducerecidivism
.It
appearsthat
ifw
eexpect
thecrim
inalactivities
ofthe
offendersto
bereduced,
some
typeof
treatment
programw
illbe
required.(A
nd,here
Iuse
“treatment”
ina
verybroad
senseto
includesuch
activitiesas
employm
ent,fam
ilycontacts,
coercedattendance
atdrug
treatment.)
Yet,
we
knowlittle
aboutw
hatthese
programs
shouldentail.
Much
more
work
needsto
bedone
toexam
inew
hattype
ofprogram
sw
orkfor
particulartypes
ofinm
atesand
atw
hatcosts
tocorrectional
systems.
We
alsoneed
toknow
thespecific
impact
ofthe
ASentencing
andC
orrectionsR
esearchA
gendaM
easuringSentencing
Outcom
esT
hroughE
xperiments
Page6
programs
onthe
individualsinvolved.
Frequently,in
today’stight
budgetenvironm
ent,jurisdictionshave
eliminated
treatment
programs.
Fundingfor
demonstration
programs
might
beparticularly
important
here.E
xamining
which
ofthese
programs
areeffective
would
bean
idealarea
tocoordinate
demonstration
programs
desiredby
practitionersw
ithexperim
entalresearch.5.1
The
Impact
ofP
rison
While
earlierresearch
onprisons
focusedon
thenegative
impact
ofprisons
onthe
inmates,
more
recentresearch
hasindicated
thatthis
isnot
always
thecase
(seefor
instance,Z
amble
andP
orporinoand
Gendreau
andhis
colleagues).W
eneed
more
information
aboutthe
experiencesof
thosew
hoare
imprisoned
particularlythose
who
anticipatespending
along
termin
prison.A
rethere
ways
toenable
themto
bem
oresocially
productivew
hilethey
arein
prisonso
theyare
notsuch
adrain
onbudgets
while
theyare
there.Since
am
ajorityof
theoffenders
will
bereleased
intothe
comm
unity,w
hatcan
bedone
toinsure
thatthey
leavehealthier
inm
indand
bodyso
thatthey
will
beless
criminally
activeand
more
prosocial.
6.P
erformance
Stan
dard
sF
orC
orrections
Quality
managem
enthas
beena
drivingforce
inrecentyears
inthe
redesignof
privateorganizations
andcorporations;
onlyrecently
havethese
conceptsbegun
tobe
appliedto
publicagencies
(Jablonski,1991).
Osborne
andG
aebler’sbook
Reinventing
Governm
ent(1992)
was
keyin
describinghow
performance
standardscould
bedeveloped
forpublic
agencies.A
ndin
1993,C
ongresspassed
theG
overnment
Perform
anceand
Results
Act
(GPR
A)
with
thepurpose
ofim
proving“the
efficiencyand
effectivenessof
Federalprogram
sby
establishinga
systemto
setgoals
forprogram
performance
andto
measure
results”(R
and,1995).
The
lawattem
ptsto
improve
programm
anagement
throughthe
processof
operationalizingstrategic
plans,and
specifyingoutcom
em
easuresand
howthey
will
beevaluated.
Budget
allocationscan
thenbe
made
usingthis
performance
information.
While
theuse
ofsuch
performance
standardsin
publicagencies
isrelatively
new,
ithas
important
implications
foruse
incorrectional
agencies.R
atherthan
dependingupon
reportsof
thesuccess
ofsom
eprogram
,such
performance
standardsw
ouldrequire
clearevidence
ofthe
impact.
There
areseveral
linesof
researchthat
havebegun
tom
ovein
thedirection
ofquality
managem
entfor
corrections(e.g.,
ASentencing
andC
orrectionsR
esearchA
gendaM
easuringSentencing
Outcom
esT
hroughE
xperiments
Page7
Logan’s
qualityof
confinement
indices;O
JJDP’s
Conditions
ofC
onfinement
Study;B
JS/P
rincetonproject
reviewing
paperson
performance-based
standardsforjustice
agencies).T
heseprojects
areattem
ptsto
quantifyaspects
ofthe
environment
thatcan
beused
asindices
ofthe
qualityof
theenvironm
ent.T
henext
steprequires
aclear
definitionand
aw
ayto
measure
theexpected
relationshipbetw
eenthe
aspectsof
confinement
andthe
outcomes
tobe
achieved.F
requentlym
easuresof
successin
corrections(e.g.,
recidivism)
aredependent
uponnum
erousfactors
(number
ofpolice
officers,drug
availability,social
decay)that
arenot
directlyunder
thecontrol
ofcorrectional
administrators.
Recognizing
this,several
criminologists
haveadvocated
thatcorrections
beevaluated
oninterm
ediateoutcom
esas
well
aslong-term
outcomes.
Forexam
ple,there
arefrequently
questionsabout
what
exactlydo
theparticipants
ina
bootcam
pdo
andhow
theseactivities
differfrom
traditionaldetention
centersor
trainingcenters
where
theseyouth
might
otherwise
be?From
previousprocess
evaluationsand
descriptionsof
programs,
we
knowthat
theboot
camps
differdram
aticallyfrom
eachother.
The
assumption
isalso
made
thatthe
bootcam
psdiffer
fromthe
more
traditionalfacilities
where
theyouth
might
beif
theboot
camps
didnot
exist.A
ctually,there
islittle
information
totell
ushow
aboot
camp
ina
particular jurisdictiondiffers
froma
detentioncenter,
trainingcenter,
orother
programw
herethese
juvenilesm
ightbe
detained.F
urthermore,
thesestatistical
descriptionsof
thecharacteristics
ofthe
programs
couldbe
usedin
analyzingthe
impact
ofthe
programon
theyouth.
The
relationshipsam
ongthe
conditions(or
environment
characteristics)and
boththe
recidivismand
positiveactivities
ofthe
youthduring
comm
unitysupervision
couldbe
examined.
Ifthe
therapyavailable
duringthe
bootcam
pw
ereexactly
thesam
eas
inthe
detentioncenter
thanw
em
ightexpect
groupsto
besim
ilarin
druguse
oncethey
arereturned
tothe
comm
unity.O
nthe
otherhand,
ifthereare
largedifferences
between
theenvironm
ents,it
would
beim
portantto
identifyw
hatfactors
fromthe
two
environments
havean
impact
ondrug
useduring
comm
unitysupervision.
Fourexam
plesthat
will
make
appropriatem
odelsfor
measuring
theenvironm
entsof
institutionsand
comparison
facilitiesare:
OJJD
P’sC
onditionsof
Confinem
entStudy
completed
byParent
(OJJD
P,1994),Q
ualityof
Confinem
entindices
usedby
Logan
(1992);T
heC
orrectionalProgram
Inventory(C
PI)developed
byG
endreauand
Andrew
s(1994);
and,T
hePrison
Environm
entInventory(PET)
testedby
Wright
(1985).E
achof
theseresearchers
havedeveloped
quantitativeindices
tom
easureaspects
ofthe
environment.
These
indicescould
beused
toexam
ineprogram
outcomes.
For
example,
OJJD
Presearchers
assessed46
assessment criteria
thatreflected
existingnational
professionalstandards
(fromA
CA
,T
heN
ationalC
omm
issionon
Correctional
Health
Care,
AB
A)
in12
areasthat
representedadvisers’
ASentencing
andC
orrectionsR
esearchA
gendaM
easuringSentencing
Outcom
esT
hroughE
xperiments
Page8
perceptionsof
confinedjuveniles’
most
important
needsin
fourbroad
areas(basic
needs,order
andsafety,
programm
ing, juveniles’rights).
They
examined
theassociation
between
theseconditions
andsuch
factorsas
escapes,suicides
andinjuries.
Ina
similar
manner,
inhis
comparisons
ofprivate
andpublic
prisons,L
ogandeveloped
indicesto
measure
thequality
ofconfinem
ent.T
heC
orrectionalProgram
Inventory(C
PEI)
was
developedby
Gendreau,
Andrew
sand
colleaguesto
measure
thequality
oftherapeutic
programs.
Finally, Wright
developedthe
PEI
basedon
earlierw
orkby
Moos
(1968)and
Toch
(1977)to
measure
institutionalclim
ate.In
allof
thesecases
theresearchers
developedquantitative
indicesor
scalesthat
couldbe
usedto
measure
aspectsor
components
ofthe
environment.
They
provideexcellent
models
forthe
development
ofm
easuresof
theconditions
ofconfinem
ent,supervision
experiencesor
eveninterm
ediatesanctions.
6.1C
onditionsof
Confinem
ent
Asubstantial
bodyof
literaturehas
begunto
recomm
endthe
needto
specifythe
components
ofprogram
sand
theirrelationships
with
outcomes.
Forexam
ple,a
recentO
JJDP
publicationon
Conditions
ofC
onfinementexam
inedthe
conditionsof
juveniledetention
andcorrections
facilities(O
JJDP,
1994).U
singm
ailedsurveys,
theC
hildrenin
Custody
Census,
andsite
visits,researchers
measured
conformance
tonational
professionalstandards
andother
selectedaspects
ofconditions.
They
recomm
endedfurther
studyof
why
facilitiesvary
sodram
aticallyin
suchfactors
asexercise
ofcontrol
andsafety.
Furtherm
orethey
proposethat
more
researchbe
completed
toexam
inethe
effectsof
theseconditions
onthe
juvenilesboth
while
theyare
inthe
facilitiesand
uponrelease.
Similarly,
aftercom
pletingtheir
evaluationof
thejuvenile
VisionQ
uestProgram
,G
reenwood
andT
urner(1987)
alsorecom
mended
thatfuture
evaluationsdescribe
andm
easurethe
“programinputs
andprocesses”
which
caninfluence
theeffectiveness
ofa
program.
As
Iam
arguinghere,
theypropose
thatthe
generalclassification
ofa
programas
aboot
camp
orw
ildernessprogram
(VisionQ
uest)does
notgive
adetailed
enoughdescription
toenable
usto
identifythe
components
thatw
illproduce
thedesired
impact.
We
needm
oredetailed
information
aboutthe
conditionsof
confinement
andw
eneed
toknow
howthese
conditionsare
associatedw
ithm
easuresof
performance
andeffectiveness.
ASentencing
andC
orrectionsR
esearchA
gendaM
easuringSentencing
Outcom
esT
hroughE
xperiments
Page9
6.2M
easuresof
Perform
ance
Tw
oother
linesof
work
havesparked
discussionsw
ithinthe
criminaljustice
comm
unityabout
theneed
tom
easurethe
conditionsor
components
ofthe
environment.
These
are:(1)
rethinkingperform
ancem
easuresfor
criminaljustice,
and(2)
performance
basedstandards
forcorrections.
Perform
ancem
easureshave
beenthe
topicof
arecent
Bureau
ofJustice
Statistics-P
rincetonP
roject(D
ilulio,1993).
The
working
groupproposed
thatthe
useof
traditionalcrim
inaljusticeperform
ancem
easuresshould
berethought.
Inparticular,
Dilulio
(1993)argues
thatw
hilerates
ofcrim
eand
recidivismm
ayrepresent
basicgoals
ofpublic
safety,they
arenot
theonly,
ornecessarily
thebest,
measures
ofw
hatcrim
inaljusticeinstitutions
do.H
eadvises
criminal justice
agenciesto
developm
issionstatem
entsthat
includeany
activitiesthat
theagency
canreasonably
andrealistically
beexpected
tofulfill
(Dilulio,
1991).
Inline
with
thisis
Logan’s
(1992)em
phasison
evaluatingprisons
onthe
day-to-day
operations,not
onultim
ate,utilitarian
goalsof
rehabilitationor
crime
reduction.L
ikewise,
Petersilia
(1993)argues
thatalong
with
theirpublic
safetyfunctions,
comm
unitycorrections
shouldbe
evaluatedon
otheractivities
suchas
theaccuracy,
completeness,
andtim
elinessof
presentenceinvestigations,
monitoring
ofcourt-
orderedsanctions,
andhow
well
theydo
inassisting
offendersto
changein
positivew
ays.T
hus,not
onlyare
theseresearchers
emphasizing
theneed
toinvestigate
components
orconditions
ofthe
environments
beingstudied
butalso
theneed
touse
aw
iderrange
ofm
easuresto
examine
effectiveness.
6.4P
erformance-B
asedS
tand
ards
forC
orrections
Recently,
attentionin
thecorrections
comm
unityhas
focusedon
thestandards
usedfor
corrections.T
raditionally,these
standardshave
beenbased
onthe
opinionsof
expertsin
thefield
who
reachconsensus
about“bestpractices.”
How
ever,there
hasbeen
apush
toward
verifyingthe
validityof
thesestandards
throughthe
useof
dataon
actualperform
ance(perform
ance-basedstandards).
High
ratesof
conformance
with
nationallyrecognized
standardsdoes
notnecessarily
mean
thatall
isw
ell.M
anyof
theexisting
standardsspecify
proceduresand
processesto
befollow
ed,but
notoutcom
esto
beachieved
(OJJD
P,1994).
These
performance-based
standardsw
ouldtie
thestandards
tothe
performance
oroutcom
esdesired.
ASentencing
andC
orrectionsR
esearchA
gendaM
easuringSentencing
Outcom
esT
hroughE
xperiments
Page10
6.5Interm
ediateO
utcomes
Intermediate
outcomes
areproposed
tobe
important
fortw
oreasons.
First,because
theyare
expectedto
indicatechanges
thatw
illbe
associatedw
ithlater
long-term
outcomes.
That
is,it
isanticipated
thatfor
some
individualsthere
isan
associationbetw
eentheir
educationaldeficits
andcrim
inalbehavior
(Andrew
set
al.,1990).
Increasingtheir
educationalachievem
entis
thenthe
firststep
inincreasing
theirpositive
socialactivities
andreducing
theircrim
inalactivities.
Second,these
intermediate
outcomes
canbe
measured
with
lessvariance
incom
parisonto
lateroutcom
es,and
theyare
more
directlyrelevant
tofactors
thatcan
becontrolled
andchanged
inthe
correctionalenvironm
ent.A
sargued
byD
ilulio(1993),
Petersilia
(1993)and
othersthese
arem
easuresthat
aredirectly
relatedto
theday-to-day
activitiesof
corrections.
6.6M
anagement
Tools
Information
aboutthe
functioningof
aninstitution
canalso
bea
valuablem
anagementtool.
The
FederalB
ureauof
Prisonshas
developeda
systemfor
periodicallyobtaining
information
onthe
conditionsat
itsfacilities
andgiving
managers
rapidfeedback
onthe
findings.Inform
ationcom
esfrom
bothdocum
entedinstitutional
records(suicides,
escapes,m
isconducthearings)
andalso
fromsurveys
ofinm
atesand
staff.T
hese“Social
Clim
ateSurveys”
includequestions
onpersonal
safetyand
security;quality
oflife;
personalw
ell-beingand
thew
orkenvironm
ent.T
heinm
atesquestionnaires
includesim
ilarquestions
andalso
additionalquestions
onservices
andprogram
s(m
edicalcare,
counseling,education,
recreation,w
ork,and
religiousprogram
s),staff
(competence,
attitudesand
interactions),the
disciplineprocess,
andaspects
ofliving
conditions.Such
information
providesa
valuablebellw
etheragainst
which
managers
canjudge
theim
pactof
changesin
thesystem
,the
inmates
inthe
facility,or
managem
entpractices.
We
needm
oreinform
ationabout
howto
designm
arnigement
toolsand
providerapid
feedbackto
correctionaladm
inistrators,both
atfacilities
andin
thecom
munity.
7.S
ystemP
lanning
One
ofthe
largestchallenges
facingcorrections
issystem
planning.T
oooften
correctionalsystem
shave
attempted
todevelop
arange
ofalternative
sanctionsthat
arenot
reallya
system.
The
alternativesall
fightforthe
similar
“model”
casesand
the
ASentencing
andC
orrectionsR
esearchA
gendaM
easuringSentencing
Outcom
esT
hroughE
xperiments
Page11
othersare
stillsent
toprison.
Systemplanning
will
becritical
asstates
beginto
addresstruth-in-sentencing
issues.T
hereis
noreason
why
quasi-experiments
couldnot
bedesigned
toexam
inethe
impact
ofsuch
changes.A
nim
portantpart
ofsystem
planningw
illbe
anexam
inationof
publicattitudes.
What
dothey
want?
How
canw
eeducate
thepublic
aboutthe
costsof
many
decisions.A
rethey
reallyas
punitiveas
theyappear?
8.E
xploringN
ewM
odels
We
needto
explorenew
models
ofsentencing
andcorrections.
The
challengeis
todeterm
inehow
newand
innovativeideas
canbe
putinto
operationas
short-termdem
onstrationprojects
thatare
rigorouslystudied.
We
seldomdevelop
programs
orsentencing
practicesthat
areinitiated
onthe
basisof
researchand
theory.W
ehave
come
toa
pointw
herew
eneed
tocritically
evaluatesom
eof
ourusual
practices.
8.1A
lternativeR
esponsesto
Crim
inalA
cts
An
excellentexam
pleof
apotential
newresponse
tocrim
eis
the“R
eintegration”paradigm
thatis
beingtested
inA
ustralia.W
hileB
raithwaite’s
Crim
e.Sham
eand
Reintegration
(1989)has
createda
paradigmshift
inthinking
aboutcrim
inalsanctions,
ithas
notbeen
adequatelydiscussed
bythose
involvedin
corrections.T
hetheory
isto
hatethe
sinbut
lovethe
sinner.If
theoffender
isapologetic
tothe
victims
andattem
ptsto
make
goodthe
harmdone,
s/heis
acceptedagain.
The
evildeed
isrejected,the
evildoeris
acceptedback
intothe
comm
unity.T
hisem
otional“reintegration”
ofthe
offenderis
acritically
important
departurefrom
currentcrim
inalsanctioning.
Insteadof
stigmatizing,
labelingand
rejectingthe
personas
bad,the
focusis
onthe
offense.W
hatan
excitingnew
way
torespond
tocrim
inalacts!
Itm
ayparticularly
appropriatefor
some
offenders(e.g., juveniles),
orin
some
locations(e.g.,
ruraldistricts),
orw
ithsom
epopulations
(e.g.,A
merican
Indiancom
munities).
How
ever,few
administrators
todayw
ouldbe
ableto
initiatesuch
anim
aginativeprogram
intheir jurisdictions.
The
challengeis
thento
identifya
procedurethat
will
enablesuch
innovativeideas
tobe
putinto
practiceand
studied.
8.2Im
pactS
elf-Control
andC
omm
unityT
ies
Boot
camps
provideanother
example
ofhow
we
needto
criticallyevaluate
ourusual
practices.T
heseprogram
shave
spreadacross
thenation
inprison,jails
andjuvenile
detentioncenters.
Opinions
abouttheprogram
svary
anddebates
continue.In
designingthese
programs
littlethought
hasbeen
givento
thetheoretical
rationale
ASentencing
andC
orrectionsR
esearchA
gendaM
easuringSentencing
Outcom
esT
hroughE
xperiments
Page12
forthe
programcom
ponents.Y
et,they
couldbe
designedto
addressproblem
sof
lowself-control
basedon
thetheoretical
perspectiveof
Gottfredson
andH
irschi(1990)
orto
increasethe
tiesor
bondsthe
offendershave
tofam
ily,em
ployment
andthe
comm
unityas
proposedby
Sampson
andL
aub(1993).
8.3T
heIm
pactof
Majo
rC
hangesin
Sentencing
Practices
We
alsoneed
toexplore
newm
odelsfor
obtaininginform
ationabout
theim
pactof
major
sentencingpractices.
Forexam
ple,one
possibilityis
todo
controlledexperim
entsacross
jurisdictionsby
randomly
selectionstates
eachw
ithsim
ilarsize
citiesto
studythe
impact
ofsom
enew
policyon
theincarceration
rates.
At
theend
ofthis
essay,I
haveintroduced
newm
odelsof
sentencingand
correctionsbecause
Ithink
thisis
perhapsthe
most
import
aspectof
meetings
designedto
addresssentencing
andcorrections
research.W
eneed
toexplore
newm
odels.For
fartoo
longour
main
image
ofcorrections
hasbeen
the“big
house”prison.
We
needto
explorealternatives
andw
eneed
todo
soon
thebasis
ofinform
eddecision
making
--
decisionm
akingthat
takesadvantage
ofscientific
knowledge
obtainedfrom
controlledexperim
entation.
ASentencing
andC
orrectionsR
esearchA
gendaM
easuringSentencing
Outcom
esT
hroughE
xperiments
Page13
RE
FE
RE
NC
ES
Andrew
s,D
.A., Z
inger,I.,
log
eR
.D.,
Bonta, J.,
Gendreau,
P.,&
Ciillen,
F.T.
(1990).“D
oesC
orrectionalT
reatment
Work?
AC
linicallyR
elevantand
Psychologically
Informed
Meta-analysis.”
Crim
inology,2.
369-404.
Braithw
aite,J.
1989.C
rime.
Shame
andR
eintegration.C
ambridge,
UK
:C
ambridge
University
Press.
Cam
pbell,D
.T.
andJ.C
.Stanley.
1963.E
xperimental
andQ
uasi-experimental
Designs
forR
esearch.C
hicago:R
andM
cNally.
Cook,
T.D
.and
Cam
pbell,D
.T.
1979.Q
uasi-Experim
entation:D
esignand
Analysis
Issuesfor
FieldSettings.
Chicago:
Rand
McN
ally.
Cullen,
F.and
K.
Gilbert.
1983.R
eaffriming
Rehabilitation.
Cincinnati,
Ohio:
Anderson
Pub.C
o.
Dilulio,
J.J.,Jr.
1993.R
ethinkingthe
criminal justice
system:
Tow
arda
newparadigm
.In
U.S.
Dept.
ofJustice,
Perform
anceM
easuresfor
theC
riminal
JusticeSystem
.(N
CJ- 143505)
Feeley,M
.M.
andSim
on,J.1992.
The
newpenology:
Notes
onthe
emerging
strategyof
correctionsand
itsim
plications.C
riminology.
30:449-474.
Gottfredson,
M.R
.and
T.
Hirschi.
1990.A
General
Theory
ofC
rime.
Stanford:Stanford
University
Press.
Greenw
ood,P.W
.and
S.T
urner(1987)
The
VisionQ
uestProgram
:A
nE
valuation.T
heR
AN
DC
orporation,C
alifornia.
Logan,
C.H
.1992.
Well
kept:C
omparing
qualityof
confinement
inprivate
andpublic
prisons.T
heJournal
ofC
riminal
Law
andC
riminology.
83:577-613.
Logan,
C.H
.1993.
Crim
inal justiceperform
ancem
easuresfor
prisons.In
U.S.
Dept.
ofJustice,
Perform
anceM
easuresfor
theC
riminal
JusticeSystem
.(N
CJ-143505).
MacK
enzie,D
.L.
1996.U
singscience
andthe
U.S.
land-grantuniversitysystem
toattack
thisnation’s
crime
problem.
College
Park,M
D:
Manuscript
submitted
forpublication.
ASentencing
andC
orrectionsR
esearchA
gendaM
easuringSentencing
Outcom
esT
hroughE
xperiments
Page14
Moos,
R.
The
assessment
ofsocial
climates
ofcorrectional
institutions,Journal
ofR
esearchin
Crim
eand
Delinquencv....:174-188.
Office
ofJuvenile
Justiceand
Delinquency
Prevention.1994.
Conditions
ofC
onfinement:
JuvenileD
etentionand
Corrections
Facilities.O
JJDP,
U.S.
Departm
entof
Justice.
Palmer,
T.1992.
The
Re-em
ergenceof
Correctional
Intervention.N
ewbury
Park,C
A:
SagePub.C
o.
Petersilia,J.
1993.M
easuringthe
performance
ofcom
munity
corrections.In
U.S.
Dept.
ofJustice,
Perform
anceM
easuresfor
theC
riminal
JusticeSystem
.(N
CJ
143505)
Sampson,
R.J.
andJ.H
.L
aub.1993.
Crim
ein
theM
aking:Pathw
aysand
Turning
PointsT
hroughL
ife.C
ambridge,
MA
SS:H
arvardU
niversityPress.
Saylor,W
.G.
1984.Surveying
PrisonE
nvironments.
Office
ofR
esearch,Federal
Bureau
ofPrisons.
Toch,
H.
1977.L
ivingin
Prison:T
heE
cologyof
Survival.N
ewY
ork:M
acmillan.
Wright,
K.N
.1985.
Developing
thePrison
Environm
entInventory.Journal
ofR
esearchin
Crim
eand
Delinquency.
..22:257-277.
ASentencing
andC
orrectionsR
esearchA
gendaM
easuringSentencing
Outcom
esT
hroughE
xperiments
Page15
IASentencing
andC
orrectionsR
esearchA
genda--__
___
__
___
Measuring
SentencingO
utcomes
Through
Experim
entsPage
16
37
cT
o:N
ational
Institu
teof
Justic
e
Fr:
Mich
aelT
onr!J
Re:
Sen
tencin
gan
dC
orrectio
ns
Research
Ot:
Feb
ruarg
5,1995
Iw
as
asked
tooffe
rsu
ggestio
ns
con
cernin
gre
searc
hprio
rities
rela
ting
toracial
disp
aritie
sin
the
justic
es!jstem
.P
artII
of
this
mem
o
do
esth
at.
Becau
se,fo
rre
aso
ns
eHp
lained
belo
w,
Ith
ink
there
areb
ut
a
few
hig
h-p
rioritJ
topics
with
inth
at
sub
ject
that
warra
nt
co
nsid
era
tion
,
Part
Iof
this
mem
oo
ffers
rese
arc
hsu
ggestio
ns
con
cernin
g“stru
ctu
red
sente
ncin
g”
pro
jects,
ato
pic
assign
edto
none
of
the
back
gro
und
paper
write
rs.
I.S
tructu
red
Sen
tencin
g,
Sen
tencin
gG
uid
elines.
The
senten
cing
reform
mouem
ent
has
been
underw
agfo
rnearlll
25
!jears
and
,usin
gsu
bsta
ntiv
era
ther
than
po
liticalcrite
ria,
itis
cle
ar
that
pre
sum
ptiv
ese
nte
ncin
gguid
elines
hav
ehan
ds-d
ow
nbeen
the
most
successfu
lof
the
majo
rin
no
vatio
ns
tried
:the!,J
hav
eeffe
ctiv
elg
been
use
das
ato
ol
tored
uce
sen
ten
cin
gdisp
aritie
sg
eneralig
and
partic
ula
rlg
inre
fere
nce
toracial
and
gender
diffe
ren
ces,
toesta
blish
and
then
imp
lem
en
tju
risdic
tion
-wid
ep
olicies,
and
tolin
ksen
tencin
gp
olicies
to
corre
ctio
ns
reso
urc
es.
[Jolu
ntarg
sente
ncin
gg
uid
elines,
paro
le
guid
elin
es,
statu
torg
dete
rmin
ate
sen
ten
cin
glaw
s,an
dm
andato
rg
pen
altie
shav
eeach
inth
eir
turn
been
tried
and
fou
nd
eith
er
ineffe
ctiv
e
or
inco
mp
lete
.(S
om
eele
cte
do
fficialsw
ou
ldd
isagre
eab
out
man
dato
rg
penaltie
s;in
priv
ate
manj
officials
will
agre
ebut
pro
fess
them
selv
es
unab
lefo
rp
olitical
reaso
ns
topro
pose
repeal
or
oppose
enactm
en
tof
mandato
ries).
As
are
sult,
more
than
25sta
tes
hav
e,h
ave
had
,o
rare
in
the
pro
cess
of
cre
atin
gse
nte
ncin
gco
mm
issions
and
sen
ten
cin
gguid
elines
(mostlg
pre
sum
ptiv
ebut
som
euolu
ntarg
).A
tth
em
om
ent,
for
eHam
ple,
new
com
missio
ns
are
at
work
inM
assa
chuse
tts,M
ichig
an,
Oklah
om
a,
Mo
ntan
a,an
dS
outh
Caro
lina,
and
legislatio
nto
cre
ate
aco
mm
ission
has
been
intro
duced
inM
arglan
d.
-
For
allth
at
activ
itg,
how
ever,
and
desp
iteth
eearlie
r
imple
menta
tion
of
guid
elines
inM
inn
esota,
Pen
nsg
luan
ia,M
argian
d,
Mich
igan
,W
ashin
gto
n,
Utah
,A
laska,
Flo
rida,
Wisco
nsin
,O
regon
,V
irgin
ia,
Kan
sas,A
rkan
sas,M
issou
ri,an
dN
orth
Caro
lina,
nosig
nific
ant
evalu
atio
n
rese
arc
hh
asb
eenfu
nd
edbg
the
federa
lgovern
men
tfo
rat
least
ten
gears.
Given
the
priv
ate
fou
nd
ation
s’lack
of
inte
rest
incrim
inal
justic
e
rese
arc
h,
fed
era
lin
actiu
itghas
meant
noactiv
itg.
This
isa
pitg
since
man
gof
the
new
state
com
missio
ns
hav
eb
eenco
mp
ete
ntlg
ledan
d
man
aged
and
hav
ebeen
han
dicap
ped
bgth
eab
sen
ce
of
credib
leev
iden
ce
onth
elik
eigeffe
cts
of
alte
rnate
policg
cho
icesth
egm
ight
mak
e.T
husif
NIJ
has
som
efleH
ibilitg
inhow
itsp
ends
sen
ten
cin
g/c
orre
ctio
ns
rese
arc
h
dollars,
an
ewro
und
of
evalu
atio
nre
searc
hon
structu
red
sente
ncin
g
sho
uld
be
ah
igh
prio
rity.
Belo
w,
Idiscu
ssa
nu
mb
erof
subje
cts
that
warra
nt
co
nsid
era
tion.
Man
yof
these
topics
could
be
co
nsid
ere
dto
geth
er,
ashap
pen
edin
the
late
‘lBs
when
NIJ
funded
anom
nib
us
ev
alu
atio
nof
sente
ncin
gch
anges
inC
aliforn
iaan
dO
regon,
or
piecem
eal,w
hich
has
been
the
NW
app
roach
cQ
tofu
nd
ing
ev
alu
atio
ns
of
inte
rmedia
tesa
nctio
ns.
Were
the
piecem
eal
app
roach
ad
op
ted
,so
me
state
sm
ight
be
the
subje
cts
of
ev
alu
atio
ns
on
more
than
one
top
ic.
H.
Bu
ildin
gIn
term
edia
teS
anctio
ns
into
Sen
tencin
gG
uid
elines.
Hg
most
stan
dard
s,th
ein
term
ed
iate
sanctio
ns
mov
emen
tfro
m1985
to
1996has
no
tbeen
much
more
effe
ctiv
e,
desp
iteits
diffe
rent
theo
retic
al
ratio
nale
,th
anw
asth
ealte
rnativ
es
mo
vem
ent
ten
gears
earlie
r:n
ew
pro
gram
sh
ave
seldo
md
em
on
strab
lgaffe
cte
drecid
ivism
rate
sfo
rnew
crimes,
saved
moneg
,or
reduced
dem
and
for
priso
nb
eds.
Hprin
cipal
reaso
nfo
rth
ose
find
ing
sis
that
judges
hav
ebeen
loath
eto
use
new
pro
gram
sas
priso
nd
iversio
ns.
Rs
are
sult,
anu
mber
of
Jurisd
ictions
hav
e
recast
eHistin
gguid
elines
(Pen
ns!Jlu
ania)
or
dev
elop
edn
ewones
(No
rth
Caro
lina)
that
inclu
de
inte
rmedia
tesa
nctio
ns
with
instru
ctu
red
sente
ncin
gs!Jstem
s.O
ther
of
the
eHistin
gs!jstem
sare
consid
ering
doin
g
soan
dm
ost
of
the
new
ones
asp
ireto
doso
.
Th
ereEs
noevalu
atio
nre
searc
hon
the
effe
ctiv
eness
of
sente
ncin
g
guid
elines
asa
dev
iceto
structu
reju
dges’
disc
retio
narg
choices
betw
een
confin
em
ent
and
inte
rmedia
tesa
nctio
ns,
among
inte
rmedia
tesa
nctio
ns,
or
betw
een
inte
rmedia
tesa
nctio
ns
and
com
munitg
penaltie
s.A
num
ber
of
pro
jects
mig
ht
be
con
sidered
.O
nem
ight
loo
kat
one
of
the
eHistin
g
cuttin
g-e
dge
sgste
ms
(North
Caro
lina
and
Pen
nsy
lvan
ia)to
dete
rmin
e
wh
eth
er
the
new
gu
idelin
esalte
rp
rison
-use
or
sen
ten
ce-o
ptio
n-c
hoic
e
patte
rns
and,
ifso
,h
ow
.A
noth
erm
igh
ttra
ce
the
dev
elop
men
t,
imple
menta
tion,
and
effe
cts
ono
utc
om
es
and
justic
esy
stem
pro
cesse
s
of
policies
dev
elop
edby
one
of
the
more
pro
misin
gnew
com
missio
ns
(e.g.,
Massa
ch
use
tts).B
ecause
priso
ncro
wd
ing
and
po
licym
akers’
searc
hes
for
wag
sto
div
ertlo
wer-risk
offe
nd
ers
from
confin
emen
tare
likely
tob
e
with
us
for
man
ygears,
anR
EPso
liciting
pro
po
sals
toev
alu
ate
the
effe
cts
of
diffe
rent
appro
aches
toin
corp
ora
ting
inte
rmed
iate
sanctio
ns
into
guid
elines
could
gen
era
tefin
din
gs
toguid
eor
info
rmpo
licym
akin
g
for
man
ygears
toco
me.
B.S
enten
cing
Gu
idelin
esan
dC
om
munitu
Co
rrections
Rcts.
Itlo
oks
asif
sente
ncin
gguid
elines
areu
nlik
elyto
be
effe
ctiv
eunless
they
are
eHten
ded
toin
clude
inte
rmedia
tesa
nctio
ns
and
asif
inte
rmedia
te
san
ctio
ns
are
unlik
elyto
achiev
eth
eir
go
alsu
nless
mean
scan
be
found
to
incre
ase
the
chan
cesth
at
judges
will
gen
erallyuse
them
for
their
targ
et
client
populatio
ns.
One
difficu
ltyin
man
yju
risdic
tions
has
been
that
sente
ncin
gg
uid
elines
hav
esta
te-w
ide
scope
while
inte
rmedia
te
san
ctio
ns
areo
rgan
ized
and
ofte
npaid
for
atco
unty
levels.
No
matte
r
what
guid
elines
pro
vid
e,th
ey
cannot
succeed
ifp
rog
rams
wh
ose
eHisten
ceor
av
aila
bility
they
pre
sum
eare
un
availab
le.S
ince
com
plete
state
takeover
of
op
era
tion
and
fundin
go
flo
calcom
munity
-base
d
pro
gram
sis
seldo
man
op
tion
,co
mm
un
itycorre
ctio
ns
acts
offe
rth
e
likelie
ststra
tegy
for
inte
gra
ting
sen
ten
cin
gg
uid
elines
and
inte
rmedia
te
sanctio
ns
po
licies.N
orth
Caro
lina
eHpressly
didth
isw
hen
the
leg
islatu
re
simulta
neously
ad
op
ted
sente
ncin
gg
uid
elines
and
com
munity
co
rrectio
ns
en
ab
ling
leg
islatio
n.
A
That
com
bin
ation
isa
likely
path
for
man!,j
state
sto
follo
wb
ut
as
get
nosy
stem
atic
evid
ence
isav
aila
ble
onhow
the
com
bin
ation
has
work
ed.
F’lo
reover,
asa
recen
tlite
ratu
rerev
iewby
Dale
Pare
nt
sug
gests,
there
aregood
reaso
ns
tobe
skep
tical
that
the
(no
tv
eryw
ell-don
e)
evalu
atio
ns
inth
e19lO
san
d1
98
0s
of
com
mun
itycorre
ctio
ns
acts
(“CC
Rs”)
pro
vid
every
usefu
lin
sigh
tsin
tohow
CC
FIsw
illw
ork
inth
e‘9
0s
and
bey
ond.
NILJsh
ould
co
nsid
er
supportin
gan
evalu
atio
nof
what
has
hap
pen
edin
state
slik
eN
orth
Caro
lina
that
hav
etrie
dto
com
bin
e
guid
elines
with
com
munity
corre
ctio
ns
acts.
These
should
inclu
de
majo
r
qu
alita
tive
com
ponen
tsin
cludin
gcase
stud
ies
of
the
develo
pm
ent
and
imp
lem
en
tatio
nof
com
munity
corre
ctio
ns
pro
gram
sat
the
county
level,
asw
ellas
managem
ent
stud
ies
of
the
opera
tion
of
state
offic
es
charg
ed
too
verse
esta
tew
ide
eHpan
sion
of
com
mun
ityco
rrectio
ns
pro
gram
min
g.
C.T
heE
ffectiv
en
ess
of
Pre
sum
ptiv
eG
uid
elines.
Gu
idelin
es
syste
ms
vary
sub
stan
tially
from
sta
te-to
-sta
tean
dth
eyhav
ebeen
vario
usly
successfu
lat
achiev
ing
their
state
dgoals.
No
neth
eless,th
ere
isw
idesp
read
belief,
based
onevalu
atio
ns
no
w12
years
old,an
do
lder,
and
onth
eab
ilityof
som
eguid
elines
state
sto
con
trol
priso
npopu
lation
gro
wth
for
eHten
ded
perio
ds,
that
pre
sum
ptiv
ese
nte
ncin
gg
uid
elines
are
aneffe
ctiv
edev
icefo
resta
blish
ing
and
imp
lemen
ting
state
wid
epo
licies,
reducin
gdisp
aritie
s,an
dre
gula
ting
priso
np
opulatio
ngro
wth
.P
erhap
s
surp
rising
ly,
the
evid
ence
onw
hich
those
belie
fsare
base
dis
slight.
The
last
co
mp
reh
en
sive
sente
ncin
gsy
stem
evalu
atio
ns
funded
byN
Ww
ere
of
statu
tory
dete
rmin
ate
sente
ncin
gsy
stem
sin
Califo
rnia
and
North
Caro
lina
and
vo
lun
targ
sente
ncin
gguid
elines
inM
argian
dan
dF
lorid
a.N
IJ
funded
nom
ajo
rev
alu
atio
ns
of
pre
sum
ptiv
ese
nte
ncin
gg
uid
elines.
(NIJ
didfu
nd
asm
allseco
ndarg
analg
sisof
Min
neso
tad
ata
inth
em
id-’S
Bs
and
Rich
ardF
rasean
dD
avidB
oern
erh
ave
done
small
second
arganalg
ses
with
frlinn
esota
and
Wash
ingto
nd
ata
,an
dth
at’s
the
litera
ture
.)In
additio
n,
asw
ithco
mm
un
itgcorre
ctio
ns
acts,
there
mag
hav
ebeen
som
ang
chan
ges
inth
eso
cial,political,
and
bure
au
cra
ticco
nteH
tsof
sente
ncin
g
since
the
earlgIB
Os
that
guid
elines
now
will
not
work
asth
egdid
in
earlie
rtim
es.
Inlig
ht
of
the
enorm
ous
scaleof
guid
elines
actiu
itgin
recent
gears,
NW
should
consid
er
issuin
gan
RFP
for
co
mp
reh
en
sive
evalu
atio
ns,
bo
thq
ualita
tive
aridquantita
tive,
of
one
or
more
of
the
pre
sum
ptiv
e
guid
elines
sgste
ms
adopte
din
the
recen
tpast
or
likeig
tobe
adopte
din
the
near
futu
re.
Itw
ould
be
com
fortin
gto
learnth
at
new
sgste
ms
canbe
assu
ccessfu
las
the
Min
neso
ta,W
ashin
gto
n,
and
Oreg
on
sgste
ms
are
wid
elgbeliev
edto
hav
ebeen
.It
would
be
just
asusefu
l,ho
wev
er,to
learnth
at
new
sgste.m
s,or
substa
ntia
ligre
vise
dold
ersg
stem
slik
e
Pen
nsg
luan
ia’s,h
ave
no
tach
ieved
their
go
als,an
dw
hg.
U.
The
Effe
ctiv
eness
of
Uolu
ntaru
Guid
elines.
Fo
rat
least
ten
gears,
since
the
pu
blicatio
nof
NW
-fun
ded
reports
onth
eeffe
ctiv
eness
of
uo
lun
targ
sente
ncin
gg
uid
elines
bgth
eN
ation
alC
en
ter
for
Sta
te
Co
urts
(Colo
rado,
mostig
)an
dR
btR
ssociates
(Mar!Jlan
dan
dF
lorid
a),th
e
con
ven
tion
alw
isdo
mhas
been
that
uo
lun
targ
guid
elines
aren
ot
an
effe
ctiv
ew
agto
structu
rese
nte
ncin
gdisc
retio
n.
(Delaw
are’seH
perierice
L
isso
metim
essaid
tobe
differen
t,but
there
has
nev
erbeen
asig
nifican
t
insid
eor
outsid
eev
aluatio
nan
dth
esta
tistical
data
that
lielawarean
s
citeas
evid
ence
of
effe
ctiv
eness
isat
best
weak
.)B
ecause
of
their
perceiv
edin
effe
ctiv
eness,
volu
ntary
guid
elines
hav
erecen
tlybeen
repealed
inW
isconsin,T
ennessee,
andL
ouisian
a,and
new
(Michigan)
and
possib
le(M
arylan
d)
com
missio
ns
would
,if
successfu
l,rep
lacefifte
en-
year-o
ldvolu
ntary
system
sw
ithpresu
mptiv
eones.
Noneth
eless,a
fewsta
tes
hav
erecen
tlyad
opted
new
volu
ntary
guid
elines
(Ark
ansas,
Virginia,
Misso
uri,
Ohio)
and
afew
oth
er
state
s
(Oklahom
a,M
ontan
a,S
outhC
arolin
a)hav
eco
mm
issions
now
atw
ork
on
contem
plated
volu
ntary
system
s.T
heprin
cipal
half-a
-loaf
reason
for
creation
of
such
system
snow
isth
at
judges
inm
any
state
srem
ainhostile
toguid
elines
and
volu
ntary
guid
elines
areseen
aspoten
tiallybette
rth
an
noth
ing
and
possib
lyas
afirst
step
tow
ardpresu
mptiv
eguid
elines.
Itw
ould
bea
worth
while
investm
ent
tofu
nd
anev
aluatio
nof
one
of
the
new
or
recent
volu
ntary
system
sto
learnw
heth
er
the
conven
tional
wisd
om
remain
saccura
teor
wheth
er
the
diffe
rent
political
climate
of
the
‘90san
dle
sser
judicial
resista
nce
than
inearlie
rtim
esm
ay
mak
evolu
ntary
guid
elines
more
effe
ctiv
eth
anpast
eHperien
cean
d
researchw
ould
pred
ict.If
not,
neg
ative
findin
gs
mig
ht
help
futu
re
state
s’av
oid
goin
gdow
ndead
-end
road
s.
E.P
rosecu
torial
Discretio
nunder
6uid
ellnes
Sustem
s.F
romth
every
beg
innin
gof
discu
ssion
of
guid
elines
peo
ple
hav
ebeen
concern
edth
at
gre
ate
rpred
ictability
of
judicially
-imposed
sente
nces
would
shift
pow
er
top
rose
cu
tors.
frlan!Jju
dg
es,
especialig
infe
dera
lco
urts,
believ
eth
isto
be
true.
EH
cept,how
euer,
for
one
NW
-funded
earlg‘B
Bs
pro
ject
concern
ing
Min
neso
taan
dU
.S.S
enten
cing
Co
mm
ission
-spon
sored
rese
arc
h
inth
eearl!J
‘90
s,th
ere
has
been
noserio
us
rese
arc
hon
wheth
er,
how
,
and
tow
hat
eHten
tch
argin
gan
dbarg
ainin
gpra
ctic
es
chan
ge,
and
with
what
effe
cts
onse
nte
nces.
Mo
stco
mm
issions
hav
edisc
usse
dth
e
pro
blem
but
du
cked
it.T
hefe
dera
lco
mm
ission
took
itso
seriousl!J
that
it
adopte
dits
most
contro
versia
lp
olic
g--re
al
offe
nse
sente
ncin
g--to
co
un
terb
ala
nce
disc
retio
nsh
iftsto
pro
secu
tors.
The
issue
isnot
go
ing
awag
and
itw
ou
ldbe
help
ful
topoliq
j
mak
ers
tohav
em
ore
than
specu
latio
nto
goon
inpred
icting
ho
w
alte
rnate
gu
idelin
eappro
aches
and
form
ats
will
affe
ct
pro
secuto
rial
behavio
ran
din
decid
ing
ho
w,
ifat
all,to
take
those
pre
dic
tions
into
accou
nt
inm
akin
gpolic!J
cho
ices.R
nFIFP
that
inv
itedp
rop
osa
lsto
evalu
ate
the
effe
cts
of
new
gu
idelin
ess!Jstem
son
pro
secu
toria
lbehavio
r
could
pro
vid
eusefu
l,oth
erw
isenot
av
aila
ble
info
rmatio
nto
state
and
federa
lse
nte
ncin
gp
olicg
mak
ers.R
itho
ug
hsu
chp
roje
cts
sho
uld
inclu
de
qu
an
titativ
eco
mp
on
en
ts,th
ep
rimarg
em
ph
asis
sho
uld
be
qualita
tive.
F.M
and
atoru
Min
imu
ms
and
Guid
elines.
Defen
selaw
gers
and
jud
ges
hate
mandato
rgm
inim
um
s.P
rose
cuto
rs’view
sare
mo
rem
iHed;
som
elik
eth
em,
som
ed
islike
them
,an
dm
an!,jare
amb
ivalen
t.M
andato
rg
min
imum
sare
for
the
most
part
destru
ctiv
eof
guid
elines
because
the!J
mak
eit
difficu
ltor
impossib
leto
ob
tain
reaso
nable
pro
po
rtion
alit!j
amo
ng
sente
nces
for
offe
nse
ssu
bje
ct
tom
and
ato
ries
and
for
oth
er
offen
ses.T
heyalso
foste
rcy
nicism
;law
yers
and
judges
prep
aredto
evad
em
andato
riesth
eyb
elieve
unju
stare
more
likely
toev
ade
guid
elines
with
which
they
disag
ree.P
’lassachusetts’s
com
missio
nis
work
ing
un
der
legislatio
nunder
which
gu
idelin
esif
adopted
would
supplan
tm
andato
riesso
longas
the
gu
idelin
eran
ges
for
pred
icate
offen
sesin
clude
the
prev
iously
man
dated
minim
um.
How
ever,
the
new
guid
elines
would
bepresu
mptiv
ew
hich
mean
sth
at
the
form
erly
man
dato
rypen
altiesw
ould
alsob
ecom
epresu
mptiv
e.M
anym
and
atory
min
imu
ms
inM
inneso
tahav
elong
wo
rked
this
way
.
Ifth
eM
assachusetts
guid
elines
areim
plem
ented
un
der
the
curren
t
enab
ling
legislatio
n,
itw
ould
bea
bad
lyw
aste
do
pp
ortu
nity
were
NlJ
not
tofund
anev
aluatio
nof
howth
enew
system
wo
rks.
For
the
foreseeab
le
futu
re,m
ost
jurisd
ictions
arelik
elyto
lackth
epolitical
will
toundertak
e
wh
olesale
repeals
of
curren
tm
andato
ries.T
heM
assachusetts
effo
rt,if
itw
ork
s,m
aypro
vid
ea
model
oth
er
state
scan
emu
late.
E.M
and
atoru
Min
imu
ms.
Strictly
speak
ing
,m
and
atory
min
imum
s
hav
eno
necessary
linkto
senten
cing
guid
elines,
find,h
onestly
speak
ing,
we
aren
ot
likely
tolearn
much
from
new
studies
of
man
dato
rypen
alties
that
was
no
tlearn
edfro
mth
efim
ericanB
arF
ou
ndatio
nS
urv
eydirected
byF
rank
Rem
ingto
nan
dL
loydO
hlinin
the
1950san
dth
esm
allev
aluatio
n
litera
ture
that
accum
ulated
inth
e19705.
No
neth
eless,th
ere
hav
ebeen
noserio
us
pro
cessstu
dies
(eHcep
tby
the
U.S.
Sen
tencin
gC
omm
issionof
the
federal
gu
idelin
es)of
the
implem
entatio
no
fm
andato
rypen
alties
since
the
19
78
s.T
herehav
ebeen
afew
inco
nclu
sive
statistic
al
analy
ses
q
of
the
effe
cts
of
mandato
ries
oncrim
era
tes.
The
litera
ture
sco
uld
fairly
be
sum
marized
assh
ow
ing
that
man
dato
ries
hav
em
ore
un
desira
ble
side-
effe
cts
than
desira
ble
dire
ct
effe
cts,
and
that
mand
ato
ries
hav
eno,
or
small
and
sho
rt-term
,dete
rrent
effe
cts.
How
ever,
mandato
rypenaltie
sco
ntin
ue
no
neth
ele
ssto
win
the
fav
or
of
man
yele
cte
do
fficials.It
would
be
usefu
l,I
believ
e,fo
rN
IJto
fund
arig
oro
us
evalu
atio
nof
new
lyen
acte
dm
an
dato
ries
inone
or
more
jurisd
ictio
ns
toin
vestig
ate
both
the
eHisten
cean
dscale
of
any
dem
on
strab
lecrim
e-re
du
ctio
neffe
cts
and
toin
vestig
ate
the
effe
cts
of
en
actm
en
tof
such
laws
onco
urt
pro
cesse
s,in
cludin
gch
argin
gan
d
barg
ainin
gp
atte
rns
and
sente
ncin
goutco
mes.
Itis
esse
ntia
lth
at
the
rese
arc
hdesig
ns
conta
inboth
stron
gquantita
tive
and
strong
qu
alita
tive
ele
men
ts;m
ost
of
the
recen
teffo
rtsto
isola
ted
ete
rrent
effe
cts
hav
e
consiste
do
nly
of
quantita
tive
analy
ses
of
official
data
retro
spectiv
ely
collected
and
asa
resu
ltit
isim
possib
lesen
sibly
tosp
ecula
teab
ou
tth
e
mean
ing
and
pro
cess
eRplan
ations
of
find
ings.
Itm
ayb
eth
at
the
policy
pro
cess
isim
perv
ious
top
ractitio
ners’
and
rese
arc
hers’
know
ledge
of
the
dysfu
nctio
nal
effe
cts
of
mandato
ries,
but
are
cen
t,so
ph
isticate
d,
fed
era
lly-fu
nd
ed
study
do
cum
entin
gth
ose
effe
cts
(assum
ing
itdid
)
would
mak
em
uch
cle
are
rth
egap
betw
een
po
licyan
dpra
ctic
e.
On
the
oth
er
han
d,
ifm
ypre
dic
tions
abo
ut
likely
find
ing
spro
ved
wro
ng,
itw
ould
be
bette
rto
know
that
there
are
plau
sible
gro
unds
for
hopin
g
man
dato
ries
wo
rkas
their
pro
ponents
pre
dic
tan
dth
at
their
passa
ge
can
accord
ingly
be
attrib
ute
dto
som
ethin
go
ther
than
political
cynicism
.
)O
ILR
acialD
isparities
inth
eJu
stice
System
.
The
keyto
establish
ing
aresearch
pro
gram
onracial
disp
aritiesis
the
startin
gprem
ise.If
the
startin
gpoin
tis
the
con
servativ
eprem
ise
that
disp
aritiesper
seare
unobjectio
nab
le,th
enth
efo
cus
of
research
should
beto
iden
tifyth
escale
andso
urces
of
invid
ious
bias
that
pro
du
ces
disp
aritiesth
at
cannot
beju
stified
interm
sof
offen
ders’
crimes
and
crimin
alreco
rds.
From
this
startin
gp
oin
t,th
efed
erald
isparities
asso
cia
ted
with
the
cra
ck/p
ow
der
distin
ction
areu
no
bjectio
nab
le
becau
seth
eyresu
ltfro
mth
een
forcem
ent
of
co
nte
nt-n
eu
tral
laws
that
black
sm
ore
often
electto
vio
late.If
this
isth
efo
cus,
there
seems
tom
e
relatively
littlem
argin
alb
enefit
inan
NIJ
researchin
itiative
onth
is
subject.
There
hav
ealread
ybeen
som
any
casestu
dies
of
police,
pro
secutio
n,
jud
icial,an
dco
rrectional
decisio
n-m
akin
gin
relation
torace
that
the
learnin
gin
cremen
tfro
mn
ewN
IJ-funded
researchseem
slikely
tobe
slight.
Lik
ewise
there
seems
littleim
portan
tto
be
learned
from
more
of
the
aggre
gate
NC
US
/IJCR
/prisonpopulatio
nan
alyses
liketh
ose
of
Blu
mstein
and
Lan
gan
.
Ifth
ep
remise
toth
eco
ntrary
isth
at
racial(an
deth
nic)
disp
arities
areper
seo
bjectio
nab
le,th
ereis
agood
bit
of
usefu
lpo
licy-relev
ant
wo
rkN
Wcould
cata
lyze.
B.
Sen
tencin
gC
aseS
tudies.
Race
and
gen
der
effe
cts
arem
uchm
ore
nuan
cedan
dco
ntin
gen
tth
ancru
de
bias
theo
riesco
ntem
plate.
For
ii
eHam
ple,w
hile
itseem
stru
eth
at,
contro
lling
for
offen
sechara
cte
ristics
and
crimin
alreco
rds,
wo
men
tgpicallUare
senten
cedless
harsh
igth
an
men
,th
eeffe
cts
of
sente
nces
ondefen
dan
ts’ch
ildren
isa
pow
erful
eHplan
atorg
variab
leth
at
mitig
atesse
nte
nces
both
for
men
and
wo
men
,
bu
tm
ore
and
more
often
for
wo
men
,an
dth
epatte
rns
uarg
with
racew
ith
the
gen
der
differen
ceb
eing
gre
ate
stam
ong
black
defen
dan
ts.F
or
anoth
er
eHam
ple,
coin
ciden
tw
ithfin
din
gs
of
agg
regate
statistic
al
analU
sesth
at
racehas
littleor
nop
redictiv
ep
ow
erco
ncern
ing
wheth
er
peo
ple
goto
priso
nor
for
howlong,
there
isev
iden
ceth
at
vario
us
“ra
ce
neu
tral”practices
adu
erseigaffe
ct
black
defen
dan
ts.O
neis
the
hig
her
rate
of
pretrial
deten
tion
for
black
s,co
up
ledw
ithth
eco
nsisten
tfin
din
g
that,
oth
er
variab
lesco
ntro
lled,
pre
trial
dete
ntio
np
redicts
imp
rison
men
t
(ov
erand
above
“time
served
”).A
no
ther
isth
elo
wer
level
of
earig
-stag
e
gu
iltgp
leasfo
rblack
s,co
up
ledw
ithth
econsiste
nt
findin
gth
at
earlier
pleas
result
inlarg
er“g
uiltj
plea
disco
unts.”
Ath
irdis
the
hig
her
pro
portio
nof
alie
nate
d,
defian
t,n
on
-coo
perativ
em
ino
ritgdefe
ndants
coupled
with
the
com
mon
ob
servatio
nth
at
lessco
op
erative
defen
dan
ts
receive
harsh
er
sente
nces.
Afo
urth
isth
eeffe
cts
of
the
crack/p
ow
der
senten
cing
laws.
NW
couldin
vig
orate
anow
mo
ribu
nd
bodgo
fresearch
bg
establish
ing
asm
allp
rog
ramof
senten
cing
casestu
dies
onth
eeH
istence,
natu
re,an
dcau
sesof
racialan
deth
nic
disp
aritieso
fth
eso
rtd
escribed
in
the
preced
ing
parag
raph.
Ang
RFP
should
be
the
op
po
siteo
fpro
crustean
.
Applican
tssh
ou
ldbe
asked
todocu
men
tth
eplau
sibilitg
of
ap
articular
disp
ara
teim
pact
h9poth
esis,offe
ra
plau
sible
causal
eHplan
ation,
and
dev
isea
researchdesig
nth
at
will
test
the
eigp
lanatio
n.
B.D
isapo
repated
Offen
din
g.
Victim
ization,
and
Oisp
aritijS
tud
ies.
Racial,
ethn
ic,an
dg
end
erdifferen
cesin
offen
din
gpatte
rns
areth
e
prim
ar!jcau
seof
disp
rop
ortio
ns
inpriso
nand
oth
er
correctio
ns
po
pu
lation
s.C
urren
tknow
ledge
of
those
beh
avio
raldifferen
cesis,
how
ever,
rudim
entarg
.A
serious
researchpro
gram
ond
isparities
and
discrim
inatio
nw
ould
inv
estin
researchaim
edat
impro
vin
gth
at
kn
ow
ledg
ebase.
Av
isitor
from
afo
reign
land
who
sawA
merica
onlgth
rough
crimin
olo
gical
(and
welfare
po
licg)
researchw
ould
thin
kth
at
all
Am
ericans
were
black
or
white
andth
at
eachof
those
gro
ups
was
monolith
ican
dundiffe
rentia
ted.
Outsid
eth
eU
nitedS
tates(an
dE
ngland),
“black
”is
not
seenas
au
seful
categorg
.In
On
tario,
for
eHam
ple,lo
ng-
termU
.S.-origin
black
resid
ents
seeth
emselv
esas
diffe
rent
from
recent
Jamaican
imm
igran
tsan
dboth
gro
up
ssee
them
selves
asdifferen
tfro
m
recent
Eth
iopian
imm
igran
ts;w
hite
Can
adian
salso
seeth
ese
gro
ups
as
fundam
entalig
diffe
rent
and
bette
rchara
cte
rized
Ineth
nic
or
oth
er
terms.
Insid
eth
eU
nitedS
tates,m
ost
peo
ple
don
ot
thin
kof
“Hisp
anics”
asone
undiffe
rentia
ted
mass,
or
“Asians”
asone
gro
up.
All
the
same,
most
researchuses
catego
riesof
black
and
white
or
black
,w
hite,
and
oth
er
(occasio
nalig
,eH
plicitlg
Hisp
anic).
We
know
from
rese
arc
hin
oth
er
coun
triesth
at
vario
us
gro
ups
falling
with
ina
single
“racialgro
up”
often
hav
everg
diffe
rent
dem
og
raph
ican
dcrim
e-particip
ation
chara
cte
ristics
(for
eHam
ples,
Yugoslau
san
dP
oles
inG
erman
y,
Jamaican
san
dE
thio
pian
sin
Can
ada,
Ban
glad
eshis
andIn
dian
sin
England,
Finns
andE
ston
ians
inS
wed
en).
This
iso
bv
iou
slytru
ein
the
United
States,
even
ifth
at
truth
isseld
om
ackn
ow
ledg
edor
studied
byre
searc
hers.
Sim
ilarly,diffe
rent
min
ority
gro
ups
hav
edrastically
diffe
rent
offen
din
gpatte
rns
inpartic
ula
rtim
es
atparticu
larplaces,
asG
erman
researchhas
sho
wn.
NIJ
cou
ldsig
nifican
tlyen
richcrim
ino
logical
research,
andp
rov
ide
policy
-relevan
tknow
ledge
that
isnot
now
availab
le,if
itw
ereto
establish
apro
gram
of
researchon
ethn
icdifferen
cesin
offen
din
g,
victim
ization
,an
dsy
stemp
rocessin
g.
For
eHam
ple,th
eeH
perien
cesof
vario
us
Hispanic
sub
gro
up
sare
pro
bab
lyvery
differen
tas
pro
bab
lyare
those
of
diffe
rent
Rsian
gro
ups,
and
with
indiffe
rent
gro
ups
the
eHp
eriences
of
successiv
em
igratio
nw
aves
(e.g.,
the
prim
arilyurb
an
educated
firstg
rou
pof
Vietn
amese
mig
rants
com
pared
with
the
prim
arily
rural
peasan
tseco
nd
gro
up
).F
orunderstan
din
gth
eso
cialth
reats
posed
bydiffe
rent
gro
ups,
for
anticip
ating
and
thereb
yhav
ing
op
portu
nity
to
amelio
ratepro
blem
sfaced
bydiffe
rent
gro
ups,
and
torev
eal
com
pleH
itiesan
dsu
bg
rou
pdiffe
rences
that
canunderm
ine
neg
ative
stere
oty
pes,
such
are
searc
hpro
gram
couldpay
importan
tben
efits.
Were
such
apro
gram
tobe
launch
ed,
itto
osh
ould
no
tbe
pro
crustean
bu
t
should
hav
eas
itsdefin
ing
chara
cte
risticth
at
allresearch
subje
cts
must
be
disag
greg
atedb
elow
the
categories
wh
ite,black
,an
dH
ispanic.
1