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