Too early is too soon

Wright, Kevin A.; Rosky, Jeffrey W.

doi:10.1111/j.1745-9133.2011.00765.x

Cited by 25 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While the propensity scoring and matching routines support our assumption of between-group comparability, the question of systematic selection remains. The decision-making processes of releasing authorities like parole boards are notoriously opaque (Caplan, 2007; Proctor, 1999; Wright & Rosky, 2011). Space in CRCs was limited, so CRC eligible parolees, like the comparison cases identified here, remained under general supervsion.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Better to Stay Home: Evaluating the Impact of Day Reporting Centers on Offending

Ostermann

2017

Crime & Delinquency

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reports the findings of a quasi-experimental evaluation of community resource centers (CRCs)—nonresidential, day reporting centers employed for recent parolees. CRC participants ( n = 2,789), drawn from release cohorts in 2008, 2009, and 2010, were matched using propensity scores to similar parolees who did not participate in CRC programming ( n = 16,500). At the conclusion of the scoring and matching process, 2,789 CRC–parolee pairs were identified, including the full population of program participants. Outcome measures, including rearrest, reconviction, and parole revocation rates, after 1, 2, and 3 years are reported. Across all release cohorts, CRC participants were arrested and revoked at significantly higher rates, resulting in higher rates of returns to custody. Implications for correctional policy are considered.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Better to Stay Home: Evaluating the Impact of Day Reporting Centers on Offending

Ostermann

2017

Crime & Delinquency

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, researchers are also cautioning against being overly optimistic about a full reversal of imprisonment trends. Recent work has warned of the strong pressures facing reformers from special interests groups that benefit from mass incarceration, such as prison guard unions (Page ), and of the potential pitfalls of basing reform simply on fiscal pressures (Clear ; Gottschalk ; Maruna ; Weisberg and Petersilia ; Wright and Rosky ).…”

Section: Explaining the Rise (And Reversal?) Of Mass Incarcerationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Paradox of Probation: Community Supervision in the Age of Mass Incarceration

Phelps¹

2013

Law & Policy

188

168

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

After four decades of steady growth, U.S. states’ prison populations finally appear to be declining, driven by a range of sentencing and policy reforms. One of the most popular reform suggestions is to expand probation supervision in lieu of incarceration. However, the classic socio-legal literature suggests that expansions of probation instead widen the net of penal control and lead to higher incarceration rates. This article reconsiders probation in the era of mass incarceration, providing the first comprehensive evaluation of the role of probation in the build-up of the criminal justice system. The results suggest that probation was not the primary driver of mass incarceration in most states, nor is it likely to be a simple panacea to mass incarceration. Rather, probation serves both capacities, acting as an alternative and as a net-widener, to varying degrees across time and place. Moving beyond the question of diversion versus net widening, this article presents a new theoretical model of the probation-prison link that examines the mechanisms underlying this dynamic. Using regression models and case studies, I analyze how states can modify the relationship between probation and imprisonment by changing sentencing outcomes and the practices of probation supervision. When combined with other key efforts, reforms to probation can be part of the movement to reverse mass incarceration.

show abstract

“…Many states have realized that increases in spending on institutional corrections have yielded remarkably little in the way of reducing recidivism and, instead, have triggered additional social costs (Blumstein and Wallman, ; Clear, ; McNiel, Binder, and Robinson, ; Travis and Waul, ; Zimring and Hawkins, ). Embedded in this realization have been state efforts in decarceration (Barker, ), which may be understood as a thermodynamic rebound of mass incarceration (see Wright and Rosky, ). As systems aim to relieve practical and fiscal pressures of institutional corrections (e.g., Austin and Fabelo, ; Engel, Larivee, and Luedeman, ; Richards, Austin, and Jones, ; Schmitt et al., ), those same pressures may be transferred to community corrections settings rather than being resolved.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of Swift and Certain Sanctions

Hamilton

Campbell

Wormer

et al. 2016

Criminology & Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

W a s h i n g t o n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y Christopher M. Campbell P o r t l a n d S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y Jacqueline van Wormer W a s h i n g t o n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y Alex Kigerl W a s h i n g t o n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y Brianne Posey W a s h i n g t o n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y Research SummaryIn the wake of the mass incarceration movement, many states must now manage the rebound of decarceration. Thermodynamic forces of the justice system, however, have pushed former fiscal pressures of institutions onto that of community corrections. Encouraged by the positive findings of recently piloted innovations, several jurisdictions have taken great interest in the implementation of deterrence-based sanctioning models when dealing with supervision violations. Among the first to implement a statewide turn to this style of sanctioning, Washington State's swift-and-certain (SAC) policy was implemented in June 2012. The intent of SAC was to expand the model found in Hawaii's Opportunity Probation and Enforcement (HOPE) to a wider criminal justiceEvaluating Offenders On Community Supervision population, while emphasizing the reduction of confinement costs. This study focused on the impact of SAC with regard to supervision outcomes for participants. By using a quasi-experimental design, we examined confinement, recidivism, treatment, violation, and costs outcomes of SAC participants. Findings reveal that SAC participants were found to incur fewer sanctioned incarceration days after a violation, reduced odds of recidivism, possessed greater treatment program utilization, reduced their propensity of committing violations over time, and as a result, imposed lower correctional and associated costs. The SAC model provides noteworthy positive effects and no appreciable negative impacts on public safety. Policy ImplicationsWe further discuss the impact of SAC in the context of deterrence-based sanctioning. Specifically, we explain how practices such as SAC may impact the future of sanctioning community supervision conditions. Although many policies that emphasize deterrence demonstrate inconsistent findings, immediate advantages of SAC take the form of fiscal savings, indicating that these novel methods provide a form of justice reinvestment. Additionally, connecting deterrence-based supervision methods to reductions in most recidivism measures suggests that proportionality and quality assurance may increase the effectiveness of these policies. We recommend ways that such nuanced implementation may be fruitful, as well as suggest ways of conceptualizing the theory of deterrence. Policy makers can appropriately work its components into supervision practice without depreciating the importance of treatment and addressing criminogenic needs.

show abstract

Too early is too soon

Cited by 25 publications

References 49 publications

Better to Stay Home: Evaluating the Impact of Day Reporting Centers on Offending

Better to Stay Home: Evaluating the Impact of Day Reporting Centers on Offending

The Paradox of Probation: Community Supervision in the Age of Mass Incarceration

Impact of Swift and Certain Sanctions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About