National Institute of Justice and Office of Justice Programs’ Corrections Programs
Sentencing & Corrections Workshop NCJRS.gov. at at us us Prepared Papers contact contact file file this this accessing accessing or or viewing viewing February 14-15, 1996 issues issues Washington, DC have have you you If
narrative
Paper
*1
would
presented to
THE
this like
UNINTENDED
paper
to
to
thank
the
February
NIJ
Rutgers in
CONSEQUENCES
NIJ
Todd
Dma
its
Research
Workshop earlier
by
R.
University
14-15,
Rose
Clear
Fellow for
OF
1996
drafts.
on contributing
INCARCERATION*
Corrections
thoughts
Research
;37 and U
The intended consequences of a prison sentence are twofold: o Moral Education--A “message” is sent to the offender and U to the public-at-large confirming that the offender’s conduct was wrong and will not be tolerated by society; U o Crime prevention--Through the mechanisms of specific deterrence (e.g., rehabilitation) and incapacitation, the offender is made less prone/capable of committing U additional crimes. I In general, then, the object of incarceration is to promote a more socially cohesive society, one in which members are inclined to conform their conduct to accepted standards of legal behavior. Conformity is induced by the lesson of the prison, experienced directly or indirectly. One way we measure moral social cohesion is by counting the incidence of crimes. Unintended consequences of incarceration occur when the use of
the prison undermines the objective of moral social cohesion. We would study unintended consequences by investigating ways in which U the use of the prison might (1) send messages, either to offenders or to the public, that are garbled as to right and wrong; or (2) I tend to increase the potential for criminality. The purpose of this paper is to identify a number of ways in which imprisonment may lead to unintended consequences. U An artifactual case for unintended consequences Through the first three-quarters of this century, America’s incarceration rate varied around a semi-stable level of about 100 prisoners per 100,000 citizens. Beginning in 1973, the nation’s U
1 U
U prison practice changed from stability to growth, and a quarter- century later incarceration rates are now over 400 per 100,000 citizens. From the point of view of intended consequences, such an increase should translate into a crime control boon. Conservative estimates are that the average active offender commits about 20 non-drug felonies a year (Spelman 1994). Swelling incarceration rates should have reduced crime in the community by large numbers. For instance, the increase in prisoners by about 700,000 between 1973 and 1992 should have reduced the incidence of crime by up to 14 million offenses, adjusting for population increases. But in 1973, the National Crime Survey estimated about 36 million crimes were committed; in 1992’ the total had only dropped to 34 2million. To put this anomaly in perspective, let us hold general deterrence constant, and assume that every incarcerated offender, if released, would commit 20 crimes a year, some portion of which would be violent. The nation’s “underlying” rate of criminality could then be calculated as the actual crimes committed plus the crimes averted by incarceration. In 1973, when we locked up 200,000 offenders, we were dealing with an “underlying” level of about 40 million crimes a year. In 1992, with almost 900,000 prisoners, the “underlying” crime rate had grown to over 51 million crimes per
‘ The National Crime Survey revised the way it collected crime data in 1993, making cross-year comparisons past 1992 inadvisable. 2 Most of the drop was due to declines in personal theft and burglary. After rising then falling since 1973, the violent crime rate in 1992 was almost identical to 1973.
2 year (even though actual crimes experienced had declined due to much higher incarceration). The numbers are more dramatic for violent crime. In 1973, we would estimate an °underlying” violence level of 6.2 million crimes per year. By 1992, that number had become 10.1 million. Accounting for population growth, the rate of “underlying” violent crime had increased by 33%- -so much that probability of actually experiencing a violent street crime was almost exactly the same 20 years later, even though an additional 700,000 offenders had been removed from the 3streets. Thus, the enormous increase in imprisonment seems to have masked a growing social propensity for violence. What accounts for our growing criminal potential? Many observers would respond that social problems such as inequality, family breakdown, economic alienation and social disorganization have become worse in the last 20 years, thus spawning more violence. The picture is sufficiently grim that we now hear frank discussion that it has helped produce a generation of so-called “superpredators.” The thesis of this paper is that high incarceration rates may also be one of those forces that has contributed to higher rates of underlying criminal violence. It is argued that incarceration has unintended consequences in two ways.
The probability of being a victim of any type of crime has dropped about 30%, according to the NCS. Adding the “averted crimes” of the incarcerated offenders to that figure results in an “underlying” crime rate in 1992 about equal to that in 1973.
3 o First, locking a person up disrupts a number of systems and theàe disruptions might plausibly contribute to higher levels of crime; and o Second, the extraordinary growth in incarceration, has damaged human and social capital within already disrupted and disadvantaged communities. Thus, this paper argues that incarceration, intended as a way to produce moral social cohesion, also contains the seeds of the exact opposite outcome. I. Crime and systems Though the accumulation of additional prisoners has been gradual, the net impact of this profound shift in the collective experience of incarceration is important to understand. Growth in imprisonment has disproportionately affected the poor and people of color. Approximately 7% of all African-American males aged 20-50 are currently in prison (BJS l995). This statistic represents a drastic loss in male membership in these communities. African- American communities have suffered war-level casualties in parenting-age males during the increase in imprisonment since 1973, when only 1% of this group was incarcerated. One way to see the potential for unintended consequences of imprisonment is to view crime and punishment from the perspective of a “systems” model, in which crime is seen as embedded in various interpersonal, family, economic, and political systems. This approach helps explain how removing large numbers of young males from the community seriously disrupts the systems on which
4 neighborhoods rely. The result is an increase in the underlying level of crime. The systems model makes the argument that crime is a social event occurring within a social context. Large numbers of individuals cannot be removed from communities without affecting the structural conditions which are conducive to crime. While communities may be able to sustain small losses in residents (due to both 11natural” events such as residential mobility and 11unnaturaP events such as incarceration) without significant fallout, removing residents past a certain threshold may begin to have impact on larger social relations. Below are listed ways in which these effects might be expected to occur. While one or another of these factors by itself may seem trivial in its relationship to crime, their combined effects may potentially be devastating. The purpose of this paper is not to build a theory of such relationships. Rather it is to show how disrupting a large number of systems through incarcerating consequential portions of a community’s population can promote, rather than reduce, crime. Interpersonal criminal systems
Crime is often a group phenomenon (see Reiss 1988) . Young males commit much of their street-level acquisitional crime in groups--muggings, burglaries, robberies and so forth. Nearly all of drug crime, from sales to consumption, is also a group activity. This raises the question of what happens when the criminal 4 justice
‘ While most citizens stand in fear of solitary offenders such as serial murderers or rapists, these crimes are comparatively rare.
S
problem
have
of
imprisonment
removed
include
implications.
left otherwise
instead with
instead
may
the
replacement
Drug
the
removed
incarceration
even
functions the
system
disruption
criminal
group
margin
be
Familial
young
It
them.
This
demand
recruit
also
removes
from
is augmentation becomes
have
recruited
members,
worse
might
continues
is
well at
In
adulthood
of
been
idea
remains
the
of
actions
tended
a
the
almost
systems
The
of
continuing
criminal
than
one
that
replacement
fathers
established
have
initiated
home.
the
little
is
a
case
into
results
member
its
to
few
unaffected
a
of
“recruitment:”
follows
of
without
been
certainly
initial
of
What
mere
the
the
groups
focus
a
criminal
(King
or
drug
attempts
of
levels.
criminal
into
in
of
group
no
drug
is
member
that
a
wash,
close
school
member.
an
1993; on
crime,
criminal
crime
less
criminal
becomes
criminal
the
by
6
trade.
activity
children
mothers
go
incarceration.
For
removal
in
career.
association
to
clear
however.
case
that
Lowstein
on
or
prevention
for
order
largely
more
every
document
in
group.
replacement
This
enterprise--with
with
example, a
is
(Gabel
as
suffer
search
young
of
intimately
the
to
male, before.
1986).
Implicit
group
drug
drug-related
It
uninterrupted.
with
carry
is
nature
1972),
Studies
when man
may
of
the
a
achieved
who
offenders,
young
may
that
If
crime
legal
The
often
otherwise
out
parents
impacts
within
the
might
and
associated
but
sometimes
group
lifelong
of male
replaces
criminal
groups,
work
be
latter
extent
by
crime.
there
this
have
This
that
are
who
the
and
the
may
of
is at effects are potent, the ripple effects of a father’s incarceration could be significant. It might be argued that removal of a criminally active father improves the environment of the remaining sons. This is not clear from the data. One study (Smith and Clear 1995) of a male, jail intake sample finds preliminary evidence for the existence of substantial positive parenting prior to incarceration. After the male’s imprisonment, the responses of the jailed inmate’s family to his incarceration include: address changes in which the remaining family moved into more cramped quarters and new school districts, family disruption including the arrival of new male roles into the family replacing the inmate, reduced time for maternal parenting due to taking secondary employment, and so on. Children’s internalization of social norms may also be disrupted by high levels of incarceration. Changes in parental working conditions and family circumstances are known to affect children’s social adjustment and norm transmission across generations (Parcel and Menaghan 1993). Adult crime is also connected both to childhood experience and to changes in adult social bonds (Laub and Sampson 1993). School success is also linked to family structure, which has effect independent of social class in impoverished families and parenting style (Vacha and McLaughlin
1992) . None of these changes will by itself “cause” delinquency, but each is a family disruption, and such disruptions are associated with earlier and more active delinquent careers.
7 The incarceration of large numbers of parent-age males also restricts the number of male partners available within the community. This means that mothers find more competition for partners and parents for their children. In the context of more competitive parental situations, mothers may feel reluctant to end relationships that are unsuitable for children partly because prospects for a suitable replacement are perceived as dim. It is known that abusing relationships with parents contribute to later delinquency among the children suffering such abuse (Widom 1994). Therefore, while the common assumption is that removing criminally-active men from the home fosters a safer environment, it may have counter-intuitive effects due to an increased risk of delinquency among the fatherless children. For example, let us say that a father’s imprisonment increases his son’s delinquency by
25%. A father of four boys will, through his incarceration, produce the equivalent of one new delinquent. The greater probabilities of apprehension and resulting crime amplification of the “new delinquent’s” children illustrate the kind of generational pattern that may occur. Economic sYstems Family members earning illegal money still contribute to the welfare of their familIes. Prior to incarceration, most prisoners are an economic resource to their neighborhoods and immediate families. Sullivan (1989) estimates that in impoverished neighborhoods, a work-age male might generate about $12,000 in economic activity in a given year--money that translates into
8 purchases at the local deli, child support, and so forth. This economic value is generated in a variety of endeavors, including off-the-books work, intermittent illicit drug trade, welfare, and part-time employment. Once arrested and incarcerated, this economic value is transformed and transferred. It is transformed into penal capital--the demand for a salaried correctional employee to provide security. It also is transferred to the locality of the prison, where the penal system’s employees reside and live. Thus, in the case of New York, a resident of Bedford-Stuyvesant, arrested and convicted, is transformed from a $12,000 resource in his community to a $30,000 resource in a sleepy, upstate village. This type of transfer of wealth applies to as many as 70% of New York State’s 69,000 inmates (dines 1992) What happens to a community that experiences a steady growth in these transfers of wealth? Economic hardship is one of the strongest geographic predictors of crime rates. The socially imbedded nature of crime and unemployment suggests that those communities suffering deprivation experience greater criminal involvement among residents (Hagan 1993) . Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that a community experiencing economic loss as a result of incarceration will experience an increase in crime (Wilson 1987) Imprisonment not only has an economic effect on the community that was home to the prisoner, it also affects the prisoner directly. Grogger (1995) demonstrated that merely being arrested has a short-term, negative impact on earnings, while Freeman (1992)
9
whose
overturned
arrests
false
cadre
the
falsifying
agent
conform
encountered
state
many
these
twenties
1995).
apparent
Thus permanent
criminal
clients
that has
justice
state
shown
In
cities,
promotes
Every
Political
means.
the
conviction of
for
communities
of
The
communities
their
by
long
system
justice,
are
to
may
justice
police
this
impact
criminal
testimony
and
this
overwhelming
that
minority
as the
Dozens
after
under
half
be
behavior
street
were
contributes
segment
systems
a
contentious.
eye.
small
on
suffering
was
was
coercive
and
of system,
goes
its
of
some
with
earning
justice
released
to
this
One-third
crime
obtained
child
incarcerated
when
found
crew,
to
formal
of
a
achieve
high
form
presence
the
long
society. group
and
to
agent
this
potential.
in
a
system
can
55
to
from
rates requirements
In
of
involvement
the
conviction
the
way
through
the
of
10
were
convictions.
Philadelphia,
have
is
are
formal
tell
of
very
of
prison,
African-American
first
offenders
to
of
true
The
validation
leaves
subjects
control
determined
American
been
incarceration,
defining
Experience
inequality
stories
planted
state
justice
people
place
in
of and
including
planting
economic
their
had
rather
In
the
is of
for
criminal
imprisonment
(Braithwaite
the
of
are
drugs
system
of
an
to
most
their
the
law
with
in
example,
lives
analysis
these
be
meaning
racism
less
males
than economic
a
beliefs system
evidence
scars
(Tyler
likely
as
the
obtained
grandmother
convictions
control;
justice
has
likely
a
tales
a
in
criminal
a
way
in
on
of
1994).
of
“fair”
ended.
1979)
(Mauer
has
about
small
to
their
means
and
100
the
the
its
by
to
be
to
in
in
is a teach her drug-dealing grandson “a lesson.” In the last few years, this crew has been responsible for over 10,000 arrests. One can imagine the collective impression of victims of the perhaps 5,000 falsified arrests, and the impressions of their children, siblings, spouses, and in-laws. The effect of a malfeasance of the law within these communities is geometric. This is one of the reasons why it would surprise few of us to learn that many inner-city young people define the power of the state as a nemesis to be avoided rather than an ally to be cultivated. There is another level at which this negative political impact may operate: it may reduce deterrence. Finckenauer’s (1982) study of Rahway prison’s “Scared Straight” program found that those exposed to the harsh, accusatory taunting by the lifers actually had more delinquency than a comparison group not exposed to the program. This suggests that the brutalizing effects of prison experiences may not only fail to deter, they may actually inure the person from fear of prison’s consequences. Stated in another way, part of the deterrent power of the prison may be the mystery that surrounds it. Once experienced, prison, no matter how harsh, is transformed from an awful mystery to a real-life experience that can be suffered and survived. High recidivism rates throughout the years are consistent with the idea that prison experiences fail to deter. Fear of prison (especially among the middle class who have not experienced it) may be a real deterrent only when it is an unacquainted fear.
11 In minority communities, prison is a part of life. A black 10 year-old is likely to have at least one (and likely more) ex-cons among his fathers, uncles, brothers, and neighbors. The lesson is that prison is not awesome, but is survivable. Widespread use of the prison is tantamount to a widespread reassurance that prison is “normal.” Thus, the politics of imprisonment may be a combination of increasing resentment and decreasing marginal gain. II. Human and social capital Effective social organization relies upon sufficient supplies of human and social capital. Thus, what criminologists think of as moral social cohesion is also reliant upon human/social capital. These constructs, seen as essential to viable community, can also be seen as affected by rates of incarceration. Human capital refers to the human skills and resources individuals need to function effectively, such as reading, writing, and reasoning ability. Social capital refers to the social skills and resources needed to affect positive change in community life. Social capital is the essence of social control for it is th very force collectives draw upon to enforce order. Social capital, however, requires sufficient amounts of human capital, so the two concepts are inextricably linked. For instance, any type of collective action requires a certain amount of knowledge with regard to organizing tactics and sufficient education to deal with outsiders. Communities deficient in human capital are unable to organize effectively, and are unable to take advantage of resources available from society at large.
12 The place of residence is a source of informal networks of people who (1) provide important products and services (such as child care), and (2) can alter life chances with job referrals, political connections (or, of course, criminal contacts). While sometimes this informal marketplace operates through monetary exchange, more often it operates through barter where reciprocity is the currency of exchange (Logan and Molotch, 1987). This system is especially important for the poor who rely more upon each other for these types of resources since poor people are less mobile than the well-to-do (Wellman, 1979). Interpersonal support among poor people is particularly damaged when their neighborhood is disrupted (Logan and Molotch, 1987). Strong neighborhoods are those which are able to meet the needs of residents. Not only are they the focal point in which daily needs are met, they are environments in which there is an availability of informal support networks. Strong neighborhoods provide a sense of physical and psychic security, in addition to a sense of identity, and they provide benefits to residents based upon a concentration of demand which often is unique to that area (Logan and Molotch, 1987; Stoecker, 1994). By contrast, disrupted neighborhoods have difficulty identifying and claiming their needs. The most disorganized communities need the most outside assistance, yet often they are not the communities which are the recipients of this assistance. For instance, Milof sky (1988) shows that resource allocation occurs from the state to the community as a function of a variety of
13 people there elder social of community. effects residents. aspects and needed money disadvantaged is ability communities distribution their representing resources sufficient (Parcel factors. also able-bodied the First It care-givers. are struggle to to capital to and clear of of absence is of watch Because requires community fewer poverty clear and Incarceration In individuals obtain human Menaghan, the often that of disadvantaged communities the foremost, to the males of state useful that parental capital funds a receive and and crime suffer the Their children community. an high that crime 1994). to influences other distribute established to in government in helps extreme removes prevent level or identify tasks, from remain resources government individuals, is facilitating communities the Filling in social destabilizing a make of terms a 14 The disrupting however, wage imprisonment community. crime the paucity the incarceration a money. capital neighborhoods and is these group for of most most earners, assistance, social and already care not identifiable a positive various of remain. voids disadvantaged. In conditions, strengthen force who primary severely to and The equipped organizations organization removes this creatë day can straining may creates guardianship, in stronger. forms distribution There do care child neighborhoods, way, distribute affect factor not communities. organization disorganized organization a the for providers, portion a of are the outcomes have strain. from absence all of is and family Yet actual fewer most and the the the the the the of it of in Incarcerationdisrupts personal networks of associations that are the basis for social organization. Individuals are differently affected by this disruption, depending upon their place in the network relative to the incarcerated individual. Immediate family members are more heavily affected by a member going to prison than are cousins who in turn are affected differently than friends. The spiralling of affects is important to recognize because it is only through examining the multiplicative impact of incarceration that we can obtain a accurate picture of its effect on community life. High rates of incarceration may also increase a community’s sense of alienation from society-at-large. Skogan’s (1990) research indicates that individuals who are unable to leave an undesirable neighborhood often withdraw. The implications of this research are that this kind of anonymity decreases integration and increases social disorganization. When the community as a whole becomes more alienated, there is less incentive to strive for mainstream goals, there is greater malaise and depression, and reduced feelings of empowerment. People need to have the skills to come together, but just as important, they need to feel that they are capable of affecting some type of control. This requires a feeling of community and empowerment which alienation (internally and from external world) ravages. Social capital is, the force behind social control, is thus a potential victim of high concentrations of incarceration. Removing so many people from a community can disrupts networks and remove vital resources from the community.
15 III. Conclusion This paper argues that the unprecedented increases in incarceration since 1973 may have contained the seeds of increases in crime. This has happened because high levels of incarceration, concentrated within certain communities, interact with socio political and economic systems in ways that promote crime and damage human and social capital. The result is a conceivable reduction in moral social cohesion. The level of counter-productiveness may actually be high enough that it largely cancels out the gain in crime prevention associated with imprisonment. If this is so, current policy-making can only exacerbate the very forces it is designed to eradicate. Perhaps these effects are so strong that the growing evidence (Blumstein, 1995) young people today are more violent and more criminal--the so-called “superpredators’--can be partly explained by the thesis that high incarceration rates have contributed to a quality of life for many of them that promotes greater anti-social responses.
16 — ———
X t-4 L- Q 0 1) W W W H- 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 dCDCD w’-< 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))- tJ Q OOs 0H- H- 500 Hi cVCD 0ft ft sentencing A new visibility laws) policy for prosecutors who to officials control marginal information of will number Some a for imprisonment future more let technology. an greater is sentencing others,witkz Who of We serve which of subtle individual, subject and of will those of can comes reductions prisoners imprisonment have Managing is situ&tions. practice shoz’t efficiency, they and the can be re*sonably oensequenc. will prisoners its to into laws some men a significantly people provide and imprisonment influence increasing still but and be prison Change in and have influence (such intermediate its cost great, in we through who will Sometimes members take significant at become o the greater are and in as sentencing (or on manage the serve for United Correctional how going domination influence and sexual we over slower discretionary inmate of more increased granted this long social can its long sentences. minority prisons. these to role States. predator labor, growth political duration and results they realistically have sentences; correctional significance for a in dacisions political by Institutions stay them groups. few privatization in the decisions We judges. While in A are and legislatures cost) at are is things parole disproportionate for Walter a a decisions not three least long larger going attention correctional (through a from expect management. The lies Sentencing within long by process), about J. sentence in strikes cost efforts and to judges in number Diolcey 2—6—96 time. high left only have the and the the use the to of usually inmate information should prepare of types great limited For most departments, and found direction environment, and attendant changes it. intended and sentencing. the example, evaluation. predict parole Correctional Correctional Correctional states ! of expectations grievances, in produce external have resources its anticipating (bigger industries budgets, for about culture 4 boards, employees. on correctional have long their bu for correctional by escape the numbers labor Some prisons little providing to managers thought union but a managers management about future, a the products achieve pious demand correctional clues the rates, Whether market creation grievances, of more outcomes ref industries that messages managers statenent themselves offenders, one about information are them, l:.ct for they in is assaults for if 2 the should given directly such the and it. direction (profitability are and, one system which are the or programs “message” way reinforcement of to information. wants for suggest little often, not, often look costs of about mission produce. prison of may influenced example) staff, and specific they to to of mixed engage are in legal “recidivism what of expectation understand the imprisonment, and industries the for characterized receive inmate The of politicians and and limits products and larger inmate They by way expectations corrections’ a statutes alga confusing. sentencing Culture ignorance of and deaths, provide rates,” on prisons ‘obs), can social is by clear they what heed the the to by be of is of other environment institution. recidivism; to race prison to with tried opportunistic shaping unexpected But into extended at management, through prison committees management and number be observers least as This few and reactive hand, the Given the to crowding: anyone managers, of the policy exceptions, to gender; be sketch like. in the inmates ones future other and the and day.” “the “proactive,” moat tools, of the who tO tian t prison ray the choices. over because aging the suggests the year,” than whether has the political Much correctional Because assumes at is policy like. to ad which are at worked correctional work environment and change use a place hoc of “the this stop the it dangerous many in health is correctional Unfortunately, Many managers of or developments this no sense, in is made biennium,” the associated much is gap. in force; request avenues 3 corrections essential related management would what information care; school, current and has faith scene. more have endeavor. the prison we any argue privatization; of administrators to of and that with no in have the savvy, daily lingo, this possible change desired chance is knows, control, “the Questions 1egislative planning. it attend number discipline; growth. is devoted come research pressures is “the governor’s but developed of Events, planning in products future smarter to growth double changing have the the technology; have day” related I, to expect is Many of results, oversight a parole; “getting inquiry usually on prison become, likely too in or. may celled, way term.” now prison to have the and any not. from far to be of be as produce The understanding what questions. important might principle understand “products” the improving, Products moment What Today methods. My — produce; - - - — - nothing goal, an their and a a publie an a designed a products as for we of person we person to person the old punished incapacitated the friends asic of prisons; Clarity mist tiis co Focus potentially and then person; prison (and/or release numbers prisons so. with with less might for think how understanding on outside is about person, this the to a a apt these enterprise on decisions, prison about to of to strong basic decide person feasibility prisoners corrupting to purpose; produce prisoners provoke these of issues the commit 4 punished education produce? prison connection which is unable enterprise matters which differently. everything, that helps or thought further increase. influence): of products (or staff), to by we and various are organize will a to commit need the differently. person work bound crimes; about community, but while to also attention products prison habits; The produce expect crimes the to how cut imprisoned: sharpen become management organizing off we family, regimen them prisons on This and to might from more the Our the to by is correctional they legislative decide, many justice production agents--more process management system. manages community ones is of worth economic people idle to environments, will other currently, How Perhaps in To capacity. be 12 subject — system. in carry the including corrections should produce value There a becauSe discretionary, billion an a prison, challenges of product mandates; community healthy we practices angry safety, sets this of or what we are should We At and such course, this of decide dollars. metaphor we judges, person. of of basically still we parson; the production how any for not have at upon as is prisons. expect try relationships minimum (with the value? low they to what where orderly merely the others one prosecutors, prisoners to a some correctional visibility bit What prisons will margin, leave produce to 5 billion 1 greater increasing of for limitations, wage, The further, produce? ones who go could safaty——ugqesting peaceful it community return to comanageft about in to inside constitutional safety this to decisions 620 and, produce prisons member we if manage, the it. deference to untapped million there produce what--if co-existence. the is of administrators takes it. of particular delivered--if There is in prison course, the are the now I treated the man over with mention resource anything—— one limits production production are paid a criminal for and hours set million parole or broad it——of kinds like safe the oo the to on to of it is of actually are carefully producing provide about products sharpen did, for and experience procedure rules policies, have attention an minimum. sentenced incapacitation) implicit correctional individual the offered discretionary the Should not On all them, a our decisions. the get formal I applied ratiorle about mattets goals what acts for to have Judges offender of thinicing this whole, by (everything it hoW inartagers); example, police case ‘We which nentioned process what them, Like, might and principle the to of may decisions expect. however, when varies. the policy about principle decide we (drug require and for what direct sharpen might are want influence inquiry and budget here, prosecutors, example, products of often and treatment, what It there we without nothing). yield from legality state or of might and procedure. 6 individual limits expect is to exempt legality is prisons, of uggest more. the made escapes agencies and produce. guidance not the lead apply who and, answer how sex to about from much judge what On to us Again, make receive, we decisions as and occasionally in offenders to the the state systematic, that or whether to arrive Put opposed corrections? over should promulgate Xiots similar other questions reference think this another we administrative the and at want be as prisons happen hand, mirrors to counseling, much product decisions important kept mandates; what well detailed what all through way, points Prison if If more to to are the the we we as we it we in a a and warden management, staff their not for through can changes prison simplistic. of different The often basically products From on Nanaainarisons including the long products overtime commensurate have inmates The The the What Prisons allegiances. changes. all and unions, in the term interactions staff outside, compleX we prison race, this. have the interests leadership thoqgh ranJs want? may may of The inmates (and executive but C&fl Jrisons. An their gangs, be have unions of “stuff” with relations to prison they often a (and be their Social I reduced prisons division Produce wish and over their as and of their own may ethnicitj, union). are cited complex. systems) all advances staff. status But their events. workers, I time. appear interests by complex own with so were Products responsibility these the of promotion. example as groupings 7 and understanding staff other Their more whole are to or to age, There The teachers, people and pay inform impedes consist complex and familiar are into uniformed pay staff their sentence is may has along They loyalties, produce the greater management and my been and not the business of irzfluenoe social groups. changes experience, of are with benefits a length. inmates their development reflect supezvisory some variety the their than in organizations the uniform, as and work and in environment All opportunity shifts the and literature often this, interests They interests does clerical union of which come done sum staff. of staff lines with have the nor but are the of up on is is parole, that prison.” whom be mechanisms example) light newcOmers. to Getting a better influence governmental are systems; practices. prison significant the complicated specific more get influenced One parts. and there There My I of areas have the prisoners clear Prisoners baio the when development to that it We the will are set woric products interplay can would by said Prisons While create culture ouJ.ture. of prison new point about by of ways be, the call release individual (parole, departmental prisons Out products. nothing out be we I what is to location product, that this we also new useful believe, of of of that need might blur shall we are their prison, a people, I Of have pardon, custody states, new it foresee seek to to the the produce. added if of actions, become continued would B release Lnclividual we explore own understand prisons, distinction to fact if organization modification want to which arrangements is achieve, be easier, that only these themselves that Put mechanism, the very to these efforts have cultures in to manage another influences “redefinition prisons systems; how useful between the prison make mechanisms a and of to present larger taken them decision that or way, identify room to and sentence forces are that simply towns prison to tuiderstand management in if these and parts are far release produce prisons of a in we ae which or state note often ways and the can the for the as are to of in and development does We objectives. how prisons prison have suggestions Research different prison co-managers community’s states. Sanctions, observed potential, extended community. incapacitating have produce to A We we Rather this This place open product crowding have had have learned Methods such from is into the affect and the mnanr about and help What opened new than quite had of to a If products development. present health? risks, the as rede:finition there and prisons from begin prisoners the do in a research this consistent try prison in the great we “delivering community. its products, the it? and know are forms the to is of maturation Their to effect past deal but the methods. prisons? who be undoubtedly What, correct, about development create If effort of, with lees role decade. “architectur&’ 9 of have comprehensive, communities the there on say, I bow experience greater for expensive cultures in in have product,” and what served we to parole example, Wisconsin, the What are similar change of aging need we been community mix are long have ways “action” consistent and supervision. with produce? of ways of to I the involved a do process? efforts prisons we less sentences. prison called people will to prisons. understand we that recipients involvement learned dietant knowledge, know invoice make with Many are culture? Intensive which with who in Nental about about quite other What are How our new two from the and and are the in whatever to this, different need these knowledge understand Finally, to develop matters. surface it of if is use, we “models” we we how People want sift need is want? to to one through, to so who manage inquire to which try work speak, 10 to the of test in is professionals imagine prisons complex different. and and then use a have to prison interplay work manage with Can knowledge back world we experience change. to from try that that get to there us do we is in • • • 5. • • • • 4. • • • 3. • • • • • 2. • • • 1. Most Hard prevention reforms, Wide Appropriate impacts Cost-Benefit population Hypothesis Projections record Descriptive: Usually Periodic local Annual and Many Sentencing New impacts Sentencing Much incapacitation, Past sentencing Researchers Policy Four Data Problems The Two partisan data to 25 wave diversity budgets. correctional is MEASURING types of Currently makers create aggregate include etc. on years surveys Sentencing Basic known sets specific characteristics, testing: and strategies. policy policies of commissions crime. analysis Studies: interested politics. Sentencing of do sentencing have audience bias, in Evaluations: and current Audiences about of not Studies is purported corrections laws and Available of SUMMARY Deterrence facilities practitioners seen etc.). and Comparing becoming SENTENCING Policy contain particular the in court on offense for have laws, reform tremendous modeling etc. exploring caseloads, operation for sentencing results Environment by and Future much systems population For been disposition an and and investments OF Sentencing activity interested Peter states. individual increasingly Most methods detail incapacitation the DISCUSSION personal or prison IMPACTS of changes crime are research Greenwood testing most current appears and on States and severely in population and in inmates require prior Research characteristics successful admission in describing sentencing important sanctions specific USING sentencing costs policies to effects, record POINTS overloaded. be some size driven EXTANT relationships and data influence to and or patterns, impacts systems, sophistication and but other comparing durable practice. by characteristics, not DATA: naive of crime prison on and prior specific reform. (deterrence, state ideology their I377 and relationships measurement trends The • • • projections The relationships particular practitioner There Measuring Using population How How treat How WHAT information information over are Extant much fast do drug MEASURING states; two of WOULD time, we community Sentencing accuracy, being is or and Data does users? future basic compare our exploring 1. required desired WITH and with court THE the investigated. prison Concept PEOPLE markets trends. 2) much since Sentencing new SENTENCING that costs, Impact THE to MARKET by the by the population other the mandatory is measurement researchers more research Paper for INFORMATION LIKE impacts and interested first Peter states sentencing February FOR how and concern Prepared TO group growing community of IMPACTS sentencing in Greenwood Corrections much SENTENCING KNOW by on - is specific in I terms errors - about is usually research: 1996 descriptive for crime compared largely IF AND of NIJ tend that law sentencing USING variable THEY sentence Research more does WHAT Workshop 1) descriptive, X is to RESEARCH and to the add HAD interested detailed, it EXTANT obscure definitions other prevent? severity WOULD policies. policy outcome to Peter IT? February our states? comparative, or involving in W.Greenwood making DATA: prison or distort THEY and data testing how 5, for and 1996 we DO the or through changes sentence disparity attempting In data should long between opposed opposed can sentence terms most Because required sentencing descriptive what uninformed Unfortunately, information practice There Using Measuring addition also actually sentences of we like be Extant the has in severity to appropriate (variation to the be current per over to know to allocated. policy the first-timers; mechanisms to commission property sentencing been used keep Sentencing ideology on comparisons gets assess arrest Data the tracking need incarceration much the about for policy to tremendous used their (natural past in or the to impacts states assess different or Unfortunately, of or sentences how data crime. be, 25 by or sentence prison debates impacts of drug and Impact the partisan people other years, experiments) can policy how the deterrence these can rate of guideline current offenders; change crimes), population allocation clearly But specific focus much be of breakdowns for severity, make (per and reforms politics makers specific found it there similar reform and the capita and primarily correctional would and help structure, between policy and repeat - of accumulation will (Tonry, rather is upheaval within in researchers 2 incapacitation. to reforms prison - to cases) activity by or not inter-state those seem assess work. reforms offenders inform per states on race, than much particularly specified 1996). capacity capacity states the that and in on crime) appears the sex use The any deal sentencing policy of (Tonry, research such variations issue proportionality state-by-state or impacts that or a sentencing real strongest limits. Since is with or to: parole great outcomes age. to those of required, debates Peter have the ‘996). violent appreciation on be this sentence February concerns of policies deal on expected Comparisons violators how driven that some interest W.Greenwood sharp issue data crime comparisons about offenders, as of and (relative sentencing are form severity, 5, and in about by in how of in how as 1996 of it as Criminal 1994, (see and National University Further major disposition populations, data The research publishing the Mellon augmented. collected, conducting The not various mandatory Using Measuring “public U.S. state-level BJS Bureau widely collection remainder BJS U.S. Extant documentation University Justice safety” types data, issues. Prisoner Department the of of data recent sentences, these by of Sentencing shared Department Data I criminal and Michigan limitations data of regarding Justice would of state, collection Statistics, appear 2. types sentences books Michael this for or on Statistics WHAT of as is like it cases Statistics accepted. their the to paper of of Impact Justice, (http://icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD). on is readily well of the efforts be 1993). to Tonry, studies, Justice, numbers affect somewhat DATA this the in helpful size thank a examines as (NPS) court. strong Bureau current (BJS) available topic related summary Franklin crime; and or with IS Daniel of suggestions, Bureau surprising produces GENERALLY that manages driving characteristics The prisoners of data, the the - to and from 3 Justice Nagin Zimring, statistics are - remainder potential sentencing, kinds of and what force very BJS an Justice annual that Larry and in Statistics, ways of ambitious little and on behind state or helpful benefits Jon we AVAILABLE of data of Statistics, Greenfeld and in their the David and correctional information this know Caulkins and which that Prisoners the movement their in semiannual Archive program section to Peter federal Hawkins are so understanding recent February be Sourcebook it limitations. for of little now might W.Greenwood obtained programs we describes Carnegie- at in summarizing of facilities wave and for routinely about the 1992, have national systematic 5, be of 1996 from of the is how the and mean commitments and demographic on Survey provides Census physical demographic Survey Survey operating number progfams, Census of Annual length. and discharges year National Measuring Using inmates’ inmates Time prison minimum on Extant of of of of of (see abuse, of detailed Jail all expenditure Served, Jails number Corrections State Jail jails, in criminal Local State and in characteristics Sentencing characteristics to prison BJS, Data local Sample time participating and state Inmates entries, (1994)). number information Prison 1995) Correctional Prisoners Jails of jails. admissions prior to histories, prison (see inmates, Survey be Impact exits, Reporting which is of is Inmates contacts BJS, (see served, of conducted periodically jurisdictions staff, by on is jail commitment and Populations and contains rated BJS, collects state, Census conducted characteristics with number inmates, is and total releases Program capacity, Violent conducted every mean number CJ a of annual population administered - number 4 of Also Jails in offense(s), system. prior approximately - and five total Offenders the inmates percent (NCRP) of national of (1983, on includes every drug years United of maximum violent by facilities. all violent to drug per and of sex, in parole 1988, five and collects estimates States,, collect movements capacity every State employee, first alcohol and race, describes years, new sentence 1993) Peter entries releases. Prison: alcohol data 1993). five February data and court of occupied, use, providing and W.Greenwood annual between years and the sentence facilities, nearly on length, history use, Sentences Annual the 5, number and 1996 every and data jail of through Offender-Based Federal arrests NIBERS/UCR pretrial or largest felons National sentencing sentencing Survey of court National for drug National characteristics and state National Using Measuring until sentence, a releases use, in systems from and representative Bureau counties Extant disposition arrests case of most Pretrial Judicial Survey commissions, (1980, participation federal Probation 40 State Sentencing sentence disposition by Data of American provides and jurisdictions of in provides Transaction Investigation, method 87, the persons Court probation for of Reporting failures Reporting sample 92). length, nation, and Adults reporting data in guidelines, cities Impact and quarterly of Organizations treatment, under to selected of Parole entry on and includes: court including and Statistics appear, Program on the System FBI characteristics jurisdictions. parole supervision. data and counties Probation 2.5 type processing Reporting Uniform to firearm arrest disposition discharge. million on provide for national of counts - (NPRP) OBTS) provides 5 the (see sentencing - 12 offense, Crime use, time. of criminal number adults months Published and a U.S. Program probability felons, representative provides and and provides information Reports). movements prior on Department and sentence. conditions of after history, conviction probation. data reported gathers role record, data data entry sample Peter on include of prior and sample February on on of of into use juries pretrial annual crimes W.Greenwood offense, processing arrest the of Justice, supervision alcohol of the admissions of county in 5, data and release, the system 1996 type and 75 of on categories. report having State standardized their most The currently fraction it are systematic listed increasing dimensional has every record The Using Measuring very considering problem found own most states Centered their on participating state Extant information difficult of the laws treated. glaring order it information inmates that categories sentencing Sentencing that grid that other. necessary Data Sentencing (i.e. do a to of has where arises deficiency variety estimate collect states five would or severity Yet attempted like standardized on data and Impact levels current in most (North of Program be individual say data attempting helpful on the using in repeat affected of of the to one according all impacts Carolina, offense felonies), the examine UCR. standardized these is to offense axis, offender prior data attempting by display to of - data and categories 6 to them, The make systems South records. and its such - classification the mandatory some sets sentencing Edna use not offense cross-state and offense laws Carolina, to described is of according At measure are McConnell overcome how the without scarce a and listed sentencing categories data absence schemes. time those Oklahoma, comparisons of above prior to corrections Peter in knowing in this when Clark prior offenders some February a decreasing of record fail spelled problem two laws, W.Greenwood Just detailed record many Foundation’s and to what is capacity 5, about are it collect Oregon) out that states is by makes 1996 or prior in are particular essential Time and mandatory often individual by severity. determine sentencing deserts of Sentencing sentences guidlines; sentencing themselves One Characteristics are discussions There Measuring Using getting sex, interest reactions listed of appropriate served Extant are focus race, to the types cell For for sentencing 50 sentence grid below. know structure, several which to of first Sentencing -- patterns to and of Data gun percent as policy other of potential Any -- depicting such current for well things the of age, offenders use In have different type states, attempt assessing sentencing laws). purposes data is actual this off as and (for by people passed what Impact sentencing sentencing the (prison how their day when to an 3. offense, or times and types median, We to know other of example, it the current start need sentences DESCRIPTIVE Three it address sentences. will suspended versus laws need served impact is of reforms laws the states thinking to average, prior introduced often Strike descriptive offense to know and see distribution probation - the for as requires know 7 of are be sentences - Frase, in opposed In record recent laws; good deterrent, about a when or doing: and helpful a STUDIES specific some more in range. particular studies the time 1995). or which prior specific changes of they or to and and which states, about development intermediate sentences to incapacitation while that sentencing This want planned record that have have 1-for-i other state. contexts. to practitioners’ states imposed, some type Peter to others might their further mandatory interact within February compare good characteristics reforms of prison Some have reform of sanction) W.Greenwood own inform are study or for a breakdowns time, an to sentencing just examples 5, use inmates (new is 1996 it and - of - is principal kind These in on imposed, policy For offenders of particular place, along descriptive straightforward prison record, Characteristics above. served for months. participation sentenced restricted Using Measuring the a understanding. those of any conviction kind with if data probability population, Extant analysis could difficulty race as modeling good correctional are interested by Time to of the data on a Sentencing in Data “truth one most function be direct and sentencing the crime task basis, for about drug served where of of introduced year and in of percentage age the affected. in in to comparisons arrest rate, conducting offender populations deterrent since treatment how its sentencing of jail the predict majority rather correctional Impact - data - crime reported can Given deterrent and sentences there the into is sent than be how or prison can conviction population rate of not them (prison, laws” is are the the used incapacitation crimes, to practitioners time the funds so reduce or available. and will probably current prison descriptive is population to much to incapacitation prison - imposed sentencing jail, standardizing 8 infer serve are only is between - 2 and by size far possibility year parole, being population the 5 Analysis what and effects. less more conviction average sentencing has or is and most probation states. policy, policy spent, than the 10 sentencing etc.) effects been characteristics important the percent of of valuable Comparative input prison will a is makers. data systematic it and the changing month, studies of sentences Peter also offense, is change. parameter characteristics policy off. which February across a a sentence than or a sentencing fairly W.Greenwood and described The good of informative over Some differences data similar has types reporting to prior Likewise, a satisfactory 5, required method state’s time, 6 been on 1996 of of data time in criminal sentencing program been and Strikes This proposed populations implementing their average?) Descriptive really Sentencing working develop effort, jurisdictions use. that etc.). transfer Using Measuring few is developed many prison Since taking Extant Law the This to justice capacity have more with from sentencing and reforms develop kind analysts Program and studies (Greenwood Sentencing beds this task up and a Data been it. potential juvenile information by system Drug of caseloads type needs. 20 of devoted accounting The on and model correctional validated now are percent standardizing mentioned 4. reforms. of Court). crime Edna than provide to useful solutions Impact PROJECTIONS do et data But RAND to are about criminal al, on of rates, McConnell just in drug they for is required for However, 1994). their our above planners a one now developed how known (In corrections standardized can users and and identifying prison court, or own, only five is to also There cleaning workloads more to Clark from - and an AND differences models get 9 but rarely years beds, availability estimate be for - example jurisdictions. (prosecution used are others Foundation’s could potential 15 EVALUATIONS used data its data state compared used that not percent and analysis to the to file easily interested in sets of many predict by x forecast costs of predict sentencing problems potential reduced such that policy is to intermediate and to State of be Most such a for 8 many future a the an Peter done the time future defense and percent makers, 12 other Centered February the models effort. such impacts California (Are impact structure percent used consuming analysts as correctional W.Greenwood fraction facility parts models a sanctions, by caseloads, drug we around single to of 5, of national Three of need could (age users 1996 of and have effort the to of clear the Deterrence fairly The that Proponents to for Assertions sentence deterrent most of and In way has changes. Projection models, number Using Measuring less hypotheses addition state-of-the-art one general suggests) planners, been evidence of small controversial Extant than offender, projecting of and laws. and at about of models jury and If 3 to consensus Sentencing diverting efforts Data as or aggregate -- large incapacitation regarding mandatory you providing difficult trials, A the 4 to range issues what are want (Zimring cluster the deterrence in to number less within etc. also from cross-sectional get magnitude Impact crime the would to to descriptive in sentencing of serious 5. detect. know them required impacts and effects this We over of the studies and effects HYPOTHESIS have crimes Hawkins, need area used how research 100 of offenders sentencing that of data laws happened to during deterrence concern but more econometric (Zedlewski, effective in sentencing averted measure - can 10 and sentencing predict 1995; academics community - development the from be data TESTING projections if the by some effects. Greenwood 1970’s the attributed the (and prison, on 1985; magnitude can an analyses impacts reform new are criminals new is additional and be cite Dilulio and that Although much to you law used intermediate to early et. anecdotal debates. help without of testing of Peter such need new were al., and more to February and actual the year 1980’s policy most 1994). test effects mandatory to W.Greenwood crime. not of marginal Piehi, providing skeptical. in evidence have sanction sentencing a such passed. pushed of makers 5, prison, variety are 1991) the The some 1996 law data type since be four incarceration, rates effects. between Hawkins community much characteristics Incapacitation primary jurisdictions Moreover, “natural that solving In et crime determining methodological studies Using Measuring done al, the can of felonies many would can farther 1978). Extant rates offender intervening for these be found states The method experiment” (1995) be level. the new used have other Sentencing resulted over a to attributed concluding authors Data along of problems, can year an rapid they what problem mandatory shows of to incapacitation been -- states the A inverse years, be isolate prevented than analysis. target, in recently increase use deterrence degree Researchers last used during to how Impact to lower such that they deterrence four a prison decade relationship sentencing the see age number to differences higher the published as in could by the different sanctions, incapacitation effects, if assess specific studies using sanction overcrowding marginal each are they presents 1980s, sanctions researchers not of or more combined between produced at additional the methods book analyses - in offense which resolve waiver because 11 without least severity an prison impact abrupt certain - and by caused opportunity litigation use at crime (only in laws to was similar Franklin have incapacitation inmate. deterrent of that population the changes is experienced detecting about estimate interrupted limited lower that somewhere are found rates individual proposed state’s results. (Levitt, the Zimring quite for of Similar impacts in crime and in what resources them growth “simultaneity”; magnitude Peter rapid a incarceration in and NIBRS) time specific new new February sanctions, level, forthcoming). Furthermore, around California rates, many and analyses at of deterrent increase W.Greenwood series rates wave strategies the such Gordon (Blumstein but or as and or three 5, arrest to of the are levels as high could laws. 1996 crime in the the or for not There done appropriate answered and not? is restrictions and rates sentencing Impacts criminals, and sentencing category basically function spending fraction who committed lambda?” better Of Measuring Using being course, the discretionary that is are What are One Extant understand locked number implemented? are of would deterrence with are not $30 of including at reforms. could to on by The compares we is the Sentencing “demand-pull” guidelines least not Data the billion start OBTS the plea professional up need fact be of broader never environment criminals only how reaction (e.g. jury two something looking works bargaining. people that to a Consider or different outcome year valuable In sentencing really know how Impact trials. statement aggregate or some 6. what even of (or criminals who crimes for on other COST-BENEFIT many more the like: hope of the sentencing people weren’t Are a impacts people kinds on kinds suddenly The most black defense crime includes example works. murders and fraction people about controls to acquittal well-described first of have of before affect urban may market thus - on and cases 12 cost-effectiveness the bar?. get laws question who things are a crime of The of - be subject sentencing rates on (unless courts positive crime that swept STUDIES new crimes is for basically interested (different do narrow What discretion it rates. like: crime). up? cocaine not of mandatory being generation by today up to one lambda)? committed has interest What think a data, replacement, in These statement a kinds in applied lambda is consequence happened and drunken Those work that -- fraction before Peter how of sentences, process ques.tions in not of Changes February And, themselves by can that and the model? are apples) is: in the really W.Greenwood brawls, it people to no deterrence, result of “What’s overburdened where the crimes need in new is of plea should matter in crimes 5, or a order last to our What policy who etc.). from as crime to 1996 rates is that be it to be are lessons proved Implementation Texas Deliberative presenting orders 1996). appropriately Criminal law An all. vacuum; going training, more The or Strikes Measuring identify Using if analysis (Greenwood second strikes or are to Extant to of from There law, differences Justice or less move as magnitude be a this Sentencing hiring Polling compares good if leading of are how most designed Data to needs it beyond information California’s et. system reduce were removed and example does more durable in efforts al, more states 7. to apples costs the the 1994). and Impacts Impact it crime police? be about IN affect cost or only of to point and should of Three targeted more SUMMARY: and and this ignored policy Dr. than A $16,000 effective reliable alternative of the benefits. Both subsequent oranges. of kind experimentation James be Strike considering a makers outcomes parent made Sentencing dollar after types of structure for - (Greenwood, law work. 13 Fishkin THE to some If Does each available - spent training and of study we estimated not each if analysis BIG for the a are serious burglary period doing (1995) with on Commissions: dollar concluded proposed program reform. general IDEAS to going Model, drug different anything it others. are with at spent crime would is treatment, to the necessary included Rydell, public. Peter might that no Experiences sentencing have on prevented methods February University about cost new sentencing an These W.Greenwood be a and parent The as convictions? the Three if several crime 5, Chiesa, of law we a have by and of strike, 1996 do are in the at a question across Comparisons outcome Intermediate compared Estimating crime Marginal crime? Laws: Implementation Measuring Using of Extant States: is evaluations; Comparative Which changing Incapacitation how Sentencing to the Data of Sanctions other to cases Multiple costs and Relative get penalties? Lessons are case people crime-control Impact Impacts and affected;? measures, and studies Implementation Sentencing for to benefits Deterrent pay other of would How? consistently attention. Mandatory options. - jurisdictions. of 14 be Severity, Impact - alternative Effects: informative. and constructed on Sentencing Impacts: Allocation courts, What sentencing over are corrections, Peter Process February and the and time; W.Greenwood net laws Waiver Efficiency and big and 5, effects 1996 on Zimring, Zedlewski, Tonry, Levitt, Greenwood, Greenwood, Frase, Fishkin, Dilulio, Blumstein, Measuring Using the D.C.. (forthcoming From Estimated MR-509-RC, James forthcoming, Effectiveness NO. Studies. Princeton, Incapacitation National Restraint Michael, Richard, Steven Extant 4, National Prison Franklin Chiesa, John James, Edwin, 1995, Alfred, Academy 1991. Peter Peter Benefits Sentencing NJ.: D., J., Data RAND. Overcrowding of 1996), “State of Sentencing 1996). The Káryn pp. Institute and : and W., “The W., Making Princeton Crime, Early Estimating Jacqueline 173-179. Voice and of Anne Gordon Karyn RAND, Sentencing Santa C. E. Effect Impact Sciences, Intervention of Oxford Peter Costs Model, Confinement of M. Matters, Monica, Justice, University, E. Litigation,” Hawkins, of the Santa Cohen, the Piehi, Model, Rydell, of Prison University Guidelines: Stephen People, Effects Washington, California’s REFERENCES Monica, CA. 1987. Oxford “Does as and C. Allan Center Population Incapacitation: Decisions. - a Quarterly of P. Peter Yale 1994. Daniel 15 Strategy Press, Prison CA. Klein, Criminal University Still - Abrahamse, D.C., of Rydell, University New Nagin, Going Domestic New Size Pay?” Three Journal Research for Mandatory 1978. Sanctions and on Press, York, Reducing Strong,” Penal (eds), Strikes Jonathan Press, Crime Unpublished James of and in New 1995. Economics, Peter Deterrence Confinement on Brief, Sentencing Comparative and 1995. Judicature, Rates: February Chiesa, Violent P. York. Crime W.Greenwood You’re Caulkins, Washington manuscript. Evidence 1996 Rates, Crime, The 5, and Law, Out: and Vol 1996 Policy Cost- 78, ManagingCorrectionalChangein CommunityCorrections MichaelP. Jacobson, Commissioner New York City Department of Correction New York City Department of Probation an This future crimes certainly provision generate the Crime that country. system symbolic corrections referred (regardless come I accurate states’ significantly will as increases while Bill. This Perhaps Introduction It which more included) a not to will statement of total result of does projection absence as There simultaneously the happen. not supervises arrests, the inability the the in Bill. not of happen more particular prison are but greatest are the Crime will exist the passing of will In a people Violent to because over number have primary population prior an as construct Bill). also change version severely effort far three-quarters legislation will two Crime have growth, even as of reason in important Specifically, be of to reasons the would restricting enough very store if placed the secure Control legislation most for the which real Bill for be increases of for prevailing prison and states under prison or consequences community matched and everyone or extend this. the level paradoxical eliminating and Law make beds community fact building in While of sentences exactly potential political community Enforcement under appropriation) the to that corrections deal for analytical additional consequences. parole. funds, the by correctional that supervision appropriations significantly with sentiment the entire supervision part many over Act planned the In effort police not of a Truth-in-Sentencing field of the rational the states on only supervision as required 1994 The for will, next prison criminal a will increasing of are makes a result first (New (hereinafter decade community world, number of stem concerned to growth. course, will justice a of in make York from huge will the the this the of be any schedule. obvious to corrections. undoubtedly new put other balanced planned. 1 expansion significant amount growing timing Bill outstripping increasing, accommodate. state the budget up ‘There design funds prisons is level services a of Th that, being and match cuts. budget demand the from will economic and increasing Secondly, the are second since cut length the at It federal that as funding for Additionally, construction a not the ft the to amendment current has they number will the for these the offset major of materialize same Bill almost or government seek while sentences Crime incarceration Crime prisons be allotted financial and funds, inspires consequence federal of accommodated time to of planned (whichever reasons using federal no Bill Bill replace over for new like the in and constituency; funding events. funds will appropriating little these the the all numbers prisons will the funds why restricting growth. lost recent not of amounts others confidence and services one result next the through cuts One the federal provide will will is finally past absence of amount will years several as ft is its n the or be or have people will will that as well the dollars. increased be importance this eliminating that in passes) money, increasing a out. be of numbers the also reduced guide to of years the as money. significantly under community future completely funds currently to There not period In will getting to use pay which addition, happen through the of for community available is parole appropriations force of (hon One for people symbolically of timeliness state community assumed it corrections states fund decreasing prison time will to service states because is the states the prison will requiring happening the be which term will supervision staff states, to funding of operating an change, where will legislation dramatically supervision. will states from due and expansion, not of immediate is are have the a followed community to happen be now. states politically prison for the receiving currently the two Bill costs will able to prison Crime at most very will due The and cut bed the on the be of by to 2 3 diminished by its exclusion from the Crime Bill; and the states provide most of the country’s community corrections funding. Therefore, communitysupervisionagencies willbe subjected to significant:,non-programmaticfunding decreasesas its numbers dramatically increase. There, then, is the paradoxicaland ultimatelytautologicalsituation in which community corrections will find itself, A combinationof actionsby the federaland state governmentswill cause the number of people under communitysupervisionto grow, and a different combination of events by those same governments will result in drasticatly reduced funding causing community corrections agenciesto be totally unpreparedfor the significantincreases which will come over the next several years. For instance, in the mostrecent budgetsubmitted to the State Legislature by New York’s Governor Pataki — a scenario I believe will be repeated in states across the country over the next several years -- he recommends increasing prison beds by 9,000. This would be financedby $490 million in Crime Bill funds. Simultaneouslywith this increase, the Governor is also proposing a 25% reduction in the funding New York State provides for probation. There is almost no chance the state will get this amount of funds from the Crime Bill and the funding for operating costs has not yet been appropriated by the state. Yet the prisons will be built and probation will be cut. But the tautological consequencesnow becomeeven more insidious. With the almost complete abandonment of support for communitycorrections at the federal level (executiveas well as legislative) and the coming decrease in support at the state level, the future of the community corrections field is fairly clear and bleak. As caseloadsgrow and funding shrinks, the occasional evaluationwill reveal — not surprisingly— that in terms of effectiveness,however detined, community corrections is likely to be foundwanting. Those Findingswill then simply measures other of TI success resources the possible these horizon crime. practitioners community be change predicament the in success advance added self-fulfilling downward agencies measures Measures What There Managing can It will with In of and to is for be success in community of the corrections require is of with are research, the community can this a cycle Success? these community which arsenal of fairly paradox, several change goal regard show depressing, recidivism essentially community will problems. ephemeral of are of Before demonstrable corrections as areas to in continue. corrections. achieving reasons by corrections, currently an anticipated is which and but environment replacing which now I corrections discuss We concept. which I especially think measurable taking it must not show success, will is as There increases these, will recidivism. iirly now anticipated used need take the ageiies of place violent be being is then financial it accurate to promise used and the currently place. is in among demonstrate important the the recidivism same undermined, understandable here, to to They field youth focus withdraw scarcity context of I sort a can criminologists success might can am debate to their population lead should of that define begin with succcssw hopeful support include discussions resources to that in any public even intelligent to be the success should discussion reverse most the that from and the field more should safety baseline as number likely to in criminal recognizing be the about policy intelligently scarcity the a occur the benefits. be field, of field trend, to managing measure focus whether used of planning commit where around justice on so days and that the as the of s.c If 4 5 drug or alcohol free, numbers enrolled in job training or employmentprograms, community service, etc. While all these are useful and demonstratevarious levelsof success (or efficiency or effectiveness) I do not believe that for either substantiveor political reasons, these should be the primary measures of success for communitycorrections agencies. Rather, it is recidivism which should be the primary measure of success for community corrections agencies. Ultimately, it is crime, and especiallyviolentcrime, which the public is concerned about. The amount and types of crime which are committed by people under community correction supervision is a Legitimateconcern. The attemptto use a host of surrogate measures of success gives the impressionthat the field itselfhas abandonedthe notionof crimeprevention and public safetyand is inventingother measuresto ensure wsuccessu.It won’t fly. However, the use of recidivismas a baseline measureof success must be exacting. That is, there need not be an onus on community corrections that it has to have a lower rate of recidivism over time for a similarly incarceratedpopulation. Tnsome cases, it only has to have a similar rate to the population with which it is being compared as long as there are other associated benefits. For example, 2Mackenzie has found that, in comparingNew York’s boot camp population against a similar parole population, there were no significant differences in terms of reincarceration. This finding (despitesome small positive findings about the role of aftercare programming) has been widely interpreted asa program failure. On the contrary, Tview this finding quitepositively. Why? Becausesince its inception in 1987, the stale’s boot camp program has saved New York State over $354 million while MacKenzie, Doris Laytonand Clair, Souryal - MultisitcEvaluationof Shock Incarceration. National2 Institute of Justice Report.WashingtonD.C., 1994 6 creas1ng the risk to public safetyby early release from prison? Would it have been better for the program to demonstrate increased public safet” benefits? Absolutely. Is it necessary, a’ long as a savings of this magnitude results fr ri a program that is continuing to keep reincarceration rates constant? Absolutelynot. In this case, recidivismcan and does play an important role in showing how achieving Financialsavings through early release and intensiveparole programs had no increased public safety risk. Similarly, communitycorrections can andshouldcompare rhcirpast and present recidivism rates in order to bolster publicpolicy arguments on their behalf. If a community corrections program can demonstrate that some new way of doing business can in fact reduce recidivism rates (again, especially violent recidivism) for a population that has historically recidivated at a higher rate, two very importantthingscan follow. The first is that the program can makea case for new fundsbasedon increasedpublicsafety (a case whichprisons arc almost entirely incapableof making). Secondly, and related to the first, is the accompanying fiscal argument that less recidivism translates into very real and significantbudget savings. The case for increased use of and funding for community corrections must be made primarily in public safety terms and only çondarlly in terms of financialsavings or other measures of “success.” Thus, communitysupervisionprograms must argue either: a) that they increase public safety compared to their own past perfonnances;b) that they increasepublic safety compared to a similarly incarceratedpopulation;or c) thattheir programs do not increase 3SLate of New York Department of Correctional Services and Division of Parole, Ih çventh Annual ShockLeaislative Report. 1995,pp 40 population community reasons. supervision who supervision foundation to primary III effective community address the dramatically as Attempting in use an current risk are environment The their There Whati& T public indicators have alternative the However, to that public for and workers resources, to corrections first resources and; public most are thus make preserving also safety community to involves several attitudes be of far which potentially 2) leads it a to do safety, public Done success. and argued is for incarceration, most Community will not this to strategies and is recidivism community identifying toward as corrections be higher already case productively. population while that: a expanding violent. further rule for community 1) costs corrections that saving neativcly community like it a will the corrections defunded must combination agencies community which once This working such contribute population If funds confront they programs. may these supervision, agencies disproportionately predisposed corrections while have with to are elsewhere appear of corrections strategies to and survive which re-arrested. those governmental this the should the employ population counter-intuitive arc greatest to which further under receives as in community prove refocus creating agencies a the measures causes does reasonable, its Furthermore, marginalizatinn likelihood and effective, criminal supervision the for their not an the fiscal can a supervision. bulk directly of environment variety resources most since embrace recidivism policies, responsible of justice they of it will harm succeeding. and community community is of of can with on obvious the in Increase forcibly systemS as in where as those order lay field well this the and the a 7 Criminology the slightly secondary express prevention identify method group and particularly long conviction This population a though way to Several 9 young structural tImes 4 Gcndrcau, Offender programs of term. type work Several less by and it goal predicting mcta-analyses 4 population a is of goal which work month for charge work help for than a In 32 and classification of should labor Treatment community Paul New this of (1990): things reducing to two both intensive Intensively this for real future predict (research high with and and York be years population two on must court, put of 173-184 relatively risk D.A. a violent recidivism an Literature future instrument high the supervision. City’s interventions. hours old in happen population with individual in place jail Andrews. existing has, likelihood New violent could crime. a Probation a cost and high session to though if and Tell should specifically York this intensive prison be literature in as criminality). risk First, ‘Tertiary especially This cognitive-behavioral of handled, Us well violence and still Department City or include committing bed new About has violence last as in proposition, and address Indicates Prevention: the savings). group already risk The violent for prone far data Once preliminary What instruments prone more 8 this future most criminogenic basis. on months. population the been that recidivism has it Works.’ offender New than population, What important population scssions. is violent this consisted done This crucial stage, simply York’s have can It variable is crimes is treatment in need is (and Canadian the The thing for to thus to cicarly is followed New keeping the of program identified, become be over Meta-Analysis thus careful sessions small can far instant alone is developed York to not the indicates achieving reduced be Journal in by prioritize, structured targeting. a short which mind does rcceptive the City arrest meet policies priority relapse only as and the the and not that 8 of of or is a - a 8 9 rate of violent recidivism among probationcrs byalmost 50% comparedto a matched historical 5sample. Making the decision to refocus resources, populationand policy forces a rarge of very difficult decisions for community corrections organizations. With a greatly disproportionate amount of resources going to this high risk population, there will be far fewer resources remaining to deal with a lower risk (and possibly more deserving) population. In effect, community corrections managers would be makinga decisionto essentially ignore or, at most, work minimally with other populations. It is a very painful decisionto make and even more so for staff to accept. It can certainly create politicaland bureaucraticproblems. It is, however, the right decision to make given present budgetary constraints. The attempt by community corrections agencies to do something for everyone under supervision(even if it is only a myth and not the reality) is totally misguided. The field is simply not now being funded in a way where this is even theoreticallypossible. The notion of spendingrelatively equal amounts of resources on everyone under supervisionresults In the fictionthat communitycorrections tends to do everything for everybody and can result in the reality of achieving nothing for anybody. The people who are not seen within suchresource intensiveprograms should be handled either through technologyor some combinationof technologyand minimalstaff. In New York City, automated reporting Kiosks with hand geometrywill be used to track and monitor tens of thousands of cases, so as to allow resources to be usedon the violenceprone population, This ‘Preliminary Analysis of DOC Blue Group Intervention. New York City Department of Probation 1995 Is supervision However, costs IV of underestimated, case or result not available prison 6Again, of as ideal; in The In 2) 3) 4) 1) 5) The Incarceration well. funds Sum this by case should resources it the difficulty Itself public It it is It The show community especially make It It is being for cost clearly focuses not will will, It will not fact will is have identifying favorable at or ultimately safety the allow with thc meaningless. moved is if present encounter that of budget identifies as both successful, over substantial way most corrections the this follows: researchers probation goals from community results costs the it the what savings have effective refocusing should tremendous which a most next institutional population of If decrease is resources the when or successful, and community going argument to several violem will benefit be another corrections case clearly compared in of have to resistance past that a prone to devoted years possible happen. of target alternative perfect will community measure significant a supervisiOn allowing rates the public agencies population only as to community groups from to of a world. governments to No similarly success work safety/budget them. recidivism to community preserve a amount secondary corrections. as variety incarceration is and and if well going Everyone or coupled is This incarcerated devoting resources most of of failure. as begin and and to corrections cost simply actors the savings would make concerned with will expand under is public benefits; to to cheaper and comparing further it ought it a quite population; make argument the public happen.’ community institutions, agencies on resources, about; majority possibly specific than not defund sense. safety the 10 n jail be to U I It’ I 13• I I I! - both be York coming focus, corrections encouraging. practical crunmal tried, inside 1The City’s to And decade put justice if New issues and to positive that the itself institutional York outside field agency would will regarding on experience’ City the of almost community be that community line Probation corrections. th program I for know surely biggest thus achieving corrections. of. corrections Department development see far failure While suggests the clear of systematic there does all, is and indeed, excellent attempting and still measurable riot implementation, remains it make transfer may potential. the significant not public a most whole of even It funds extensive safety initial is host work, efforts an from benefits, of idea results although reforms theoretical to which community change then are of must New very the any and Ii its / 379 A Sentencing and Corrections Research Agenda. MEASURING SENTENCING OUTCOMES THROUGH EXPERIMENTS A Concept Paper for the National Institute of Justice U.S. Department of Justice By Doris Layton MacKenzie Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice University of Maryland February, 1996 MEASURING SENTENCING OUTCOMES THROUGH EXPERIMENTS Within the criminal justice research and policy communities debate continues about the effectiveness of various approaches to reducing crime and insuring public safety. Without credible scientific research and evaluation, a justice system that is so highly political necessarily responds to the ebb and flow of public pressure. Despite the fact that the National Institute of Justice and the Office of Justice Programs have fought valiantly to change this situation, obstacles still exist that limit the use of science to provide objective answers to the critical questions in corrections. Consider the following contrast with the field of medicine. No one would consider releasing a new drug or using a new medical procedure unless carefully designed clinical trials had been completed to provide evidence of the effectiveness of the medicine or procedure. The same cannot be said of correctional research. Three- strikes sentencing laws, boot camps, and drug courts have spread throughout the nation. While all of these may be exciting, innovative and potentially effective methods of solving correctional problems that plague us, at this point there is little research evidence to support such rapid proliferation. Too often, we permit new correctional programs to proliferate based on anecdotal evidence, speculation, hunches, public attitudes (often naive), and sweeping political endorsements. When we compare research in corrections and in criminal justice in general, it becomes obvious that the respect for research, use of information from research and support for research falls well below that of other fields. The National Institute of Justice should continue to emphasize the need for strong research methodology to answer the questions that plaque our correctional systems. 1. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs Throughout the correctional system there is a critical need for research using rigorous research designs. Experimentation with random assignment of individuals to treatment and control groups permits the clearest interpretation of cause and effect relationships. Such designs enable researchers to rule out alternative explanations for the results. But random assignment of subjects is not the only design that permits researchers to examine cause and effect relationships. In criminology, control group designs so dominate our thoughts that to many people they seem synonymous with experimentation. Researchers may give up attempting anything like an experiment in field settings where control groups are not available. As a result, they end up with more imprecision than is necessary. In many natural settings something like an experimental design can be used. Such situations are referred to as quasi-experimental designs (Cook and Campbell, 1979; Campbell and Stanley, 1963). While these designs lack the full control over the scheduling of experimental conditions which makes a true experiment possible, they enable researchers to rule out some threats to validity, and even without random assignment it is possible to infer causes and effects. Even with controlled studies we must caution people not to expect too much. Too often, we are disappointed in science because we have led others to believe in the once-and-for-all definitive experiment. We must increase our time perspective and recognize that continuous, multiple experimentation is more typical. The experiments we do today will need replication and cross-validation at other times and under other conditions before they can become an established part of science, before they can be interpreted with confidence. However there are steps that can be taken to maximize - the information that we obtain from studies. Particularly important in facilitating our progress will be: (1) close cooperation between researchers and practitioners; (2) the coordination of demonstrations projects and research; and, (3) use of multi-site projects and consortiums of researchers. 2. Practice and Science: The Importance of Close Cooperation Between Researchers and Practitioners Practice and science are not opposites. Both are the result of a gradual accumulation of possibilities that are selectively retained, the impossibilities are eliminated by experience (Cook and Campbell, 1979; Campbell and Stanley, 1963). This perspective leads to a respect for traditional correctional practices. Across time, many different approaches have been tried, some approaches have worked better than others. If those approaches which worked better have to some extent been persistently practiced by their designers or imitated by others then the practices which have emerged may represent valuable and tested subset of all possible practices. But this process of evolution is imprecise in the natural setting. The conditions of observations are far from optimal. What survives or is retained is determined to a large extent by pure chance. Experimentation enters at this point as a means of sharpening the relevance of the testing, probing, and selection process. Thus, experimentation is not necessarily contradictory to traditional wisdom. Instead, it is a refining process superimposed upon the valuable accumulations of intelligent practice. Advocacy of an experimental science of corrections thus does not imply adopting a position incompatible with traditional wisdom. A Sentencing and Corrections Research Agenda Measuring Sentencing Outcomes Through Experiments Page 2 Measuring A The are and but critical. personnel program enough drug be as chance successful. such treatment solve Selecting prison failure felons embrace a involved could field. goals drug programs and address. address draw spread Sentencing chance the hard critical. the not agency treatment courts, decisions. cases, problems latest conclusions. are be Now It may riots sound the that An particularly by throughout put However, The The problems Sentencing has is a and used in The do being the in nor their and agency, rigorous evaluation little personnel to be an On This or moving boot “tough-on-crime” designing it scientific little order researcher their bite try “model” be innovative has because Corrections to evaluation for heinous an the that agency achieved. The wonder the becomes critical camps study overwhelming vested heard job there offenders Outcomes reached to recognized other staff the helpful Some evaluation. arise. drug new result reduce may better. can method or offenders nation, they crimes the to completes are by and or that Research of hand, interest administering technique? idea abusers of report be ideas even be a Numerous Given effectiveness three-strikes. is Through to the the factors were costs are stage their administration many a disastrous Too threatened them. by policy. for for not is public gamble the program. just more begin A to negative success Agenda designed in those politically the favored out drug which are where often necessarily the new, researcher within Experiments participate, agency developing some Neither Failures exigency just critical of experimental and report with An for courts who a for the innovative institutions, An of by they there in correctional Few findings the program evaluation some politicians of correctional to personnel practice. the research. reducing will end the work popular. outsider with party the provide if could does would system originated because is “in-house” of or drug the a evaluation of conclusion suffer needs a politician the eliminating in some critical on is the not program will but or have courts. have the and recidivism. satisfied team who For that view is situation a politically Rather program techniques quasi-experimental greatly. researchers often the managers. way costly “It turn recommendations system. from coordinating example, serious reduce researchers to comes need because from courts evaluations doesn’t has of to or out take get these training method with those the make a in will supported Are to to inside the manager popular consequences the Rapid in responsibility. helping But were that evaluation examine They recommended work.” show courts the drug so enthusiastically to they opportunity working chance observations are if often for might programs evaluate the relationship. the as designed processing it must courts that willing programs protected threatening must agency managing the appear becomes supervision for designs agency whether the that be it in is program take change make is have a such results used the to or to to those Page to not the and will a like take of a the as to 3 Measuring A the would collection among generalizability. advantages. increase 4. demonstrations The not as teach demonstration issues useful to addressed of a insure demonstration accountability. 3. demonstration practitioners. research. and help Sentencing lifetime.” trials the demonstration results build project continuing develop us old be of while that researchers. A Multi-Site We A Coordinating in the what Sentencing possible concern. our final instruments, substantial saying are a One research and the need may interaction short-term Without First, it knowledge a to works Corrections The method project demonstration exists projects. projects way new projects relationship It be appear to Second, “Give projects and will they Outcomes Projects However, relationship learn interpreted will This to and to -- a amount enable that promote Demonstration require of and carefully maximize problem. among accomplish while a to to require and improved Research These base. provides solutions man multi-site maximizing without research. be exists analysis Through and would those corrections the effective, of it projects a close researchers. with An programs such must close is fish, money designed Researcher Agenda only replication We the being them who a for strategy environment Experiments develop our projects techniques. confidence. coordination corresponding a he’ll be external could coordination as the the are relationship fund Projects goals, but in the designed fed long has will eat evaluation, findings long-term rigorously the for without opportunity Multi-site solve between money. can the and few Consortiums for has as “Crime face validity attacking that grants be If the and cross-validation a such among the to extremely day; obtained close among might encouraged objective designed hard protect money problems fosters This the evaluated. problem Research any Bill” of projects problems. for teach to researcher the scrutiny scientific those the be demonstration would those research. share has is the the from problem. to limited study to evaluation a available, that and distributing have tie man by been increase use objectivity who theoretical In be and that research funding NH evidence move by we my and of fine to long-term two allocated fund demand increasing is Ideally, demonstrations confront. such fish, opinion, the necessary can the if but major project on the is the for of the ideas, he’ll sharing interaction to we does be to the project a for other funds value. likened will the close is the eat A Page not data if only use for to 4 I can imagine many different techniques for developing such researcher interactions. A project may have one principal investigator who works with local researchers (a model we used in the multi-site study of boot camp prisons). Or a series of grants may be awarded to different principal investigators who are required as a condition of the grant to attend Researcher Consortium meetings to discuss and share their progress (a model similar to Spouse Assault Replications experiments). The later requires strong supervision to insure coordination and progress. Such consortiums also require a method of insuring that the data can be combined for cross-site analysis. A further advantage of such research collaboration is the design of data collection instruments. This is a time consuming and costly initial task confronting many investigators. In our boot camp work we shared the instruments with other jurisdictions. This has been advantageous because it has permitted cross-site comparisons. Once the data are archived researchers will be able to combine it to do an analysis with a larger data set, thus increasing the power to detect differences. Consider the funding that appears to be planned for the development of Drug Courts, Boot Camps and possibly violent offender programs. They provide key examples of projects that can be used as models of the way research can progress. The necessary components are in place to combine controlled experiments, close interactions between practitioners and researchers, demonstration funding that requires evaluation, and cooperative multi-site projects. We need to develop new models for encouraging these interactions and the use of science to solve the problems we face (MacKenzie, 1996). 5. What Works, When, and For Whom? The “Nothing Works” era in corrections is over (Andrews et al., 1990; Palmer, 1992; Cullen and Gilbert, 1983). The conclusion that there was no evidence of effective correctional programs was the result, in part, of the poor quality of the research that was done at the time. It is not that high quality programs were studied with rigorous designs. Rather, inadequate programs were often studied with substandard research designs. In most cases, the designs did not permit researchers to draw any conclusions about the effectiveness of the program under study. We must protect ourselves from repeating such a dismal record. Today, correctional administrators and staff search for cost effective programs -- programs they can afford that will make a difference. Only the poor correctional A Sentencing and Corrections Research Agenda Measuring Sentencing Outcomes Through Experiments Page 5 Measuring A what done be activities criminal we remain there offenders Sentencing” perhaps effectiveness classes, hope changing change popular characteristics rebellious retarded criminal Correctional Individual developing Interest system be community. aptly positively individuals difference and administrator Sentencing required. know concerned rising costs to they is written, What in examine the Research little without Yet, and the programs focuses activities moral Sentencing activities as little their the are will attitudes, to change supervision factors in and values, easiest rapid employment, and aftercare when a evidence experts correctional has not community (And, of the with the constellation sees about Corrections have behavior. of development threatening these the on what changed become has lives offenders. assessments problems of are include, the consider Outcomes and morals, managing their to how here need a errors what the have uncovered and positive study called programs offenders type that of other caseloads, wards to offenders I Research to these Numerous actually job family clear systems. use by these designed the in move and among of Through part with public of of change cognitive antisocial The and increased thinking, populations support programs “treatment” control of impact. crowding factors as from people. attitudes programs is of and dozens contacts, controlled the an Agenda large rationale “throw they reduce severely others, to safety. a Experiments We offenders. programs inability jurisdictions improve rational investigations risks be programs have aspects skills behavior try groups beliefs Anger control. also Despite work of reduced, of and recidivism. away impulsivity, and should to and coerced in We factors is offenders limited. moved experiments. need programs. provide a and to that ‘get their for to management, of favoring moving of needs very can As take are people. the will Intermediate attempt sanctions just individuals particular entail. some tough” once have to that Simon chance attendance see us of broad also tight know the of be some as sentencing It away intermediate low are aggregates this these initiated type law offenders. These reduced. appears an perspective popular. They to Much sentencing budgets, and Our sense related for the that change intermediate self-control, type change types from violation, drug of factors through sanctions Feeley success at specific programs knowledge want treatment permit more these of to that drug system. the treatment, of Some to through Such crowded include in treatment some sanctions to inmates are of have criminal if focus (1992) the work the programs treatment.) immaturity, - in offenders make impact we others. programs may risk-taking, changed particularly step attempt the focus of correctional program However, forced about expect the such on needs facilities, these parenting have be and a in that is activities. system. of on that “Smart in the to to us at the may Page to the are Yet, so will the to be 6 programs on the individuals involved. Frequently, in today’s tight budget environment, jurisdictions have eliminated treatment programs. Funding for demonstration programs might be particularly important here. Examining which of these programs are effective would be an ideal area to coordinate demonstration programs desired by practitioners with experimental research. 5.1 The Impact of Prison While earlier research on prisons focused on the negative impact of prisons on the inmates, more recent research has indicated that this is not always the case (see for instance, Zamble and Porporino and Gendreau and his colleagues). We need more information about the experiences of those who are imprisoned particularly those who anticipate spending a long term in prison. Are there ways to enable them to be more socially productive while they are in prison so they are not such a drain on budgets while they are there. Since a majority of the offenders will be released into the community, what can be done to insure that they leave healthier in mind and body so that they will be less criminally active and more prosocial. 6. Performance Standards For Corrections Quality management has been a driving force in recent years in the redesign of private organizations and corporations; only recently have these concepts begun to be applied to public agencies (Jablonski, 1991). Osborne and Gaebler’s book Reinventing Government (1992) was key in describing how performance standards could be developed for public agencies. And in 1993, Congress passed the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) with the purpose of improving “the efficiency and effectiveness of Federal programs by establishing a system to set goals for program performance and to measure results” (Rand, 1995). The law attempts to improve program management through the process of operationalizing strategic plans, and specifying outcome measures and how they will be evaluated. Budget allocations can then be made using this performance information. While the use of such performance standards in public agencies is relatively new, it has important implications for use in correctional agencies. Rather than depending upon reports of the success of some program, such performance standards would require clear evidence of the impact. There are several lines of research that have begun to move in the direction of quality management for corrections (e.g., A Sentencing and Corrections Research Agenda Measuring Sentencing Outcomes Through Experiments Page 7 Measuring A that Commission program by to tested environments indices Confinement use the important expect during youth environment descriptions program impact camps camps a camps previous participants detention that corrections confinement correctional be definition officers, BJS/Princeton Logan’s agencies). Sentencing particular measure Gendreau used other during reflected corrections by during did groups differ the differ Four used of For as outcomes. quality Sentencing Wright where drug hand, process centers the to boot and not community aspects and indices jurisdiction example, (e.g., These in by examples of identify administrators. on and characteristics) from dramatically existing community Study and program of availability, to exist. Corrections a a project the if Logan these camp Correctional of be way boot institutions (1985). be Andrews evaluations thereare the recidivism) or Outcomes the projects of confinement of characteristics evaluated completed similar For training what juveniles outcomes Actually, to there the the camp national were more (1992); that supervision. on reviewing differs measure example, Each Research environment. supervision quality the from factors social large (1994); will are exactly Through are in do traditional and centers and Health and on Recognizing youth. are drug of professional The frequently by and from attempts there might to make each indices; differences intermediate comparison of the Agenda these both decay) dependent papers descriptions Parent OJJDP of from be and, the Correctional Experiments how use the Care, expected a where the is other. The achieved. could appropriate be the detention same researchers little facilities environment. once the The These these to programs that OJJDP’s detained. on (OJJDP, researchers questions relationships recidivism ABA) quantify this, two these standards be performance-based The between Prison upon information as they are facilities outcomes activities relationship indices of examined. in environments several Frequently Program center, where not assumption youth in programs, are Conditions models the numerous 1994), could have Environment Furthermore, aspects about 12 directly the returned and assessed (from detention The could are: areas the among might criminologists training differ developed as be environments, to Quality positive Inventory for what If next between well youth OJJDP’s measures tell of used ACA, we be the factors under that is measuring of have from otherwise to the 46 the also us used know step center exactly as standards center, Confinement therapy the in represented Inventory might of these assessment activities environment how conditions The long-term quantitative the an traditional analyzing made the (CPI) Confinement (number requires Conditions community. to of that impact than have control National a examine do statistical aspects or be it success the be? available boot that would for developed the other the if we (PET) of advocated the a outcomes. From advisers’ of justice criteria (or on boot the camp Study; the the of clear might of that indices police of in boot be drug Page On boot can in 8 Measuring A measures of produce not classification effectiveness describe Program, juvenile completed are exercise recommended national Children the recent for measure experiences cases quality Inventory work developed needs, association perceptions Sentencing confinement give in components the by the the OJJDP Similarly, order development A 6.1 of In the a professional and detention of Sentencing Moos aspects in of Greenwood facilities researchers detailed substantial therapeutic a (CPEI) to and indices control desired Custody performance between similar of or measure and of examine of publication Corrections further Conditions confined even and (1968) a a of or safety, program. program was after Outcomes enough and to and programs and we components impact. manner, intermediate Census, of these body standards measure developed the and study programs. the developed and corrections need upon safety. completing measures juveniles’ programming, Research and “program Turner effects on description conditions of as Toch Through of of As We to in release. and and Conditions literature effectiveness. a Confinement the why Furthermore know his boot I and of quantitative need (1977) am Agenda their of (1987) Finally, of site by sanctions. quality facilities comparisons most Experiments the their inputs facilities other these the camp arguing Gendreau, how visits, more and to relationships environment. has juveniles’ conditions to important evaluation also enable of selected of Wright conditions these such and or measure begun detailed Confinement (OJJDP, they researchers confinement. here, vary indices wilderness recommended processes” factors Andrews conditions us of propose developed rights). so to aspects they needs private to of institutional of with information recommend dramatically or on 1994). They identify confinement, the as propose scales measured the program outcomes. in and examined escapes, that which juvenile of They and The are provide juveniles four that the Using conditions. colleagues the more that public associated Correctional that examined PEI climate. can broad future about the components (VisionQuest) in conformance could suicides VisionQuest mailed excellent supervision research the the such based For influence need prisons, both the areas evaluations conditions general be example, to They In factors with to the conditions while surveys, on and measure used all Program specify (basic be models earlier Logan that the of injuries. to does they to Page as these a of will the the 9 Measuring A to existing standards nationally been actual experts used wider components ordered ways. completeness, community Likewise, to-day (Dilulio, not activities He performance while been environment. and community 1993). Sentencing be advises the (2) for a achieved the performance range push rates operations, Recently, 6.4 Thus, in In only, standards Two The 6.2 sanctions, performance corrections. Sentencing to topic 1991). that recognized the line Petersilia and criminal of toward corrections the of about or working other or measures field not the Corrections (OJJDP, crime with Performance-Based and measures These of conditions performance Measures necessarily attention only a specify agency Outcomes the not and timeliness who lines (performance-based verifying recent this (1993) justice and Traditionally, based standards group are: need on are how should should 1994). reach is of Research to recidivism can ultimate, procedures Bureau these Logan’s of of in (1) Through examine argues to the work standards well agencies proposed or the the the Performance reasonably of consensus measure rethinking be be These best, outcomes does researchers presentence environments corrections Agenda they validity have rethought. evaluated of (1992) that Experiments utilitarian these may Standards effectiveness. Justice measures not to and do performance-based that for sparked along the develop standards). about necessarily in of and represent standards corrections. processes performance desired. emphasis the conditions assisting these emphasizing on Statistics-Princeton community investigations, with realistically In goals use of “best being other discussions particular, for mission what standards of their basic have of to on High Corrections mean practices.” traditional offenders activities studied rehabilitation or be Performance criminal measures evaluating public has been statements goals components the followed, be rates standards that Dilulio within through monitoring focused expected need but based safety of to all such of criminal justice However, Project for also change public conformance is prisons to the (1993) but would measures that the as or well. on criminal investigate on functions, the of to criminal the crime institutions not the use of the (Dilulio, the justice safety, include fulfill in need on argues Many accuracy, court- tie there outcomes opinions positive of standards reduction. the justice, the have data to justice with they Page has any of day- that use do. on the are 10 of a Measuring A correctional not 7. how bellwether administrators, inmates process, The religious services safety inmates periodically institutional managers management activities changed outcomes, their (1993) intermediate because term association 1990). Sentencing really inmates to positive outcomes. and One System design and Information 6.6 Intermediate 6.5 Increasing in and and and Sentencing they programs), in a of rapid security; the against and and system. others the of systems between obtaining corrections. records staff. programs aspects questionnaires tool. outcomes are social marnigement facility, the Corrections Management both Planning they correctional Intermediate That expected largest Outcomes these which These their The quality The about are at have of (suicides, activities staff their outcomes is, information or facilities (medical living can Federal more educational are alternatives Research it managers management challenges “Social on (competence, attempted educational the to of is Through be tools include measures environment. the indicate anticipated directly Tools conditions. functioning life; Outcomes and escapes, measured are Bureau and care, findings. Agenda and Climate personal on proposed reducing Experiments can similar in to achievement facing all provide counseling, that relevant changes the deficits practices. the develop judge misconduct of attitudes fight with that conditions Surveys” of Such are Prisons Information community. As questions corrections well-being their an to for for rapid the directly argued less to and that be a information institution the and factors range some impact We education, criminal is has variance important criminal will feedback hearings) include then similar at interactions), by and need related developed comes and individuals is of its be Dilulio that of the system also alternative facilities can activities. associated more the changes in behavior questions “model” provides recreation, first for can to to and from comparison additional also work correctional the (1993), two information planning. be a step also the there system be both and day-to-day controlled in environment. reasons. cases (Andrews sanctions a with Second, on in a from discipline the valuable giving work, valuable Petersilia documented is increasing personal questions for to system, later an and Too surveys later about and First, these and that the et Page long- often al., the on are of 11 juvenile Measuring A In usual procedure imaginative communities). locations current This acts! as criminal again. apologetic corrections. Shame “Reintegration” come demonstration sentencing is 8. planning they not educate address others Sentencing designing to bad, be emotional determine appear? practices. to It designed Boot are The 8.2 the criminal and An 8.1 We Exploring detention truth-in-sentencing the a Sentencing sanctions, may (e.g., will that point still to focus excellent and practices evil Reintegration need program public these camps The the particularly be Impact will Corrections rural Alternative projects sent However, “reintegration” how deed These where paradigm sanctioning. to is to victims an theory centers. programs Outcomes about New enable examine on it provide explore to examination districts), new example that in is has prison. the programs Self-Control we rejected, that their is Models Research and the are and not few (1989) appropriate offense. such that need to Opinions Through Responses new another are issues. the little jurisdictions. costs initiated hate been attempts innovative Instead of administrators or System is of innovative rigorously to impact models a the have has Agenda being with of thought the the potential critically of adequately What Experiments public example There evildoer and about created many offender of sin on for spread some planning to tested to of stigmatizing, of ideas an the make but Community some has Criminal such is studied. ideas attitudes. the The sentencing decisions. new exciting evaluate populations basis no a of today love across is been in discussed can paradigm is programs good changes. offenders accepted how challenge reason will Australia. to response a the of critically be be given would We the be Acts new we the some research What put sinner. put labeling and Are Ties why critical seldom nation by need harm (e.g., shift vary back to way An (e.g., into into is to be of corrections. they do those While the quasi-experiments important then crime important If able our to in and and to operation done, into practice they and American in juveniles), as the theoretical develop really critically thinking respond to involved prison, usual states to debates theory. Braithwaite’s the rejecting is offender want? identify s/he initiate the as departure community. and practices. part The begin programs as jails punitive is to Indian about evaluate continue. or We How in rationale short-term studied. accepted criminal of such is a the challenge in and to have system could some Page person can Crime. from an as or our we 12 for the program components. Yet, they could be designed to address problems of low self-control based on the theoretical perspective of Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) or to increase the ties or bonds the offenders have to family, employment and the community as proposed by Sampson and Laub (1993). 8.3 The Impact of Major Changes in Sentencing Practices We also need to explore new models for obtaining information about the impact of major sentencing practices. For example, one possibility is to do controlled experiments across jurisdictions by randomly selection states each with similar size cities to study the impact of some new policy on the incarceration rates. At the end of this essay, I have introduced new models of sentencing and corrections because I think this is perhaps the most import aspect of meetings designed to address sentencing and corrections research. We need to explore new models. For far too long our main image of corrections has been the “big house” prison. We need to explore alternatives and we need to do so on the basis of informed decision making -- decision making that takes advantage of scientific knowledge obtained from controlled experimentation. A Sentencing and Corrections Research Agenda Measuring Sentencing Outcomes Through Experiments Page 13 Measuring A publication. MacKenzie, attack Logan, of public Logan, The Greenwood, Stanford Gottfredson, of Feeley, Dilulio, paradigm. System. Anderson Cullen, Issues Designs Cook, Campbell, University Braithwaite, Andrews, Informed “Does Sentencing Justice, corrections RAND this prisons. T.D. for Correctional C.H. C.H. M.M. F. J.J., (NCJ- Sentencing for University Meta-analysis.” Field nation’s Performance Pub. D.A., and D.T. and In Press. Corporation, and D.L. Research. P.W. 1993. 1992. Jr. M.R. J. U.S. and and Corrections K. 143505) Co. The 1989. Settings. Campbell, and Zinger, 1993. 1996. Gilbert. Simon, and Outcomes its and Dept. crime Criminal Well Journal Press. Treatment J.C. implications. Crime. S. T. Chicago: Rethinking Measures Using I., Research kept: of Turner Stanley. California. problem. Hirschi. Chicago: J. Criminology, 1983. D.T. loge Through Justice, of 1992. justice Shame Criminal science Work? Comparing (1987) 1979. Rand Agenda R.D., Reaffriming for 1963. 1990. Experiments The the REFERENCES College Rand Criminology. Performance performance and the McNally. criminal and A Bonta, Quasi-Experimentation: new The 2. Law Experimental Criminal A Reintegration. McNally. Clinically quality the General Park, 369-404. VisionQuest penology: and J., Rehabilitation. U.S. justice Measures measures Gendreau, Criminology. MD: 30:449-474. of Justice land-grant Relevant Theory confinement and system: Manuscript Notes Cambridge, Program: System. Quasi-experimental for for of P., and on Cincinnati, university Crime. prisons. the & 83:577-613. Toward Design the Psychologically Ciillen, in Criminal (NCJ-143505). submitted An UK: private emerging Stanford: In Evaluation. and a system Cambridge U.S. new F.T. Ohio: Analysis Justice and for Dept. (1990). strategy Page to 14 Moos, R. The assessment of social climates of correctional institutions, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquencv....:174-188. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 1994. Conditions of Confinement: Juvenile Detention and Corrections Facilities. OJJDP, U.S. Department of Justice. Palmer, T. 1992. The Re-emergence of Correctional Intervention. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Pub.Co. Petersilia, J. 1993. Measuring the performance of community corrections. In U.S. Dept. of Justice, Performance Measures for the Criminal Justice System. (NCJ 143505) Sampson, R.J. and J.H. Laub. 1993. Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points Through Life. Cambridge, MASS: Harvard University Press. Saylor, W.G. 1984. Surveying Prison Environments. Office of Research, Federal Bureau of Prisons. Toch, H. 1977. Living in Prison: The Ecology of Survival. New York: Macmillan. Wright, K.N. 1985. Developing the Prison Environment Inventory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. ..22:257-277. A Sentencing and Corrections Research Agenda Measuring Sentencing Outcomes Through Experiments Page 15 I A Sentencingand Corrections Research Agenda --______Measuring SentencingOutcomesThrough Experiments Page 16 successful in corrections presumptive !jears penalties used implement sentencing” relating guidelines, few or Part To: writers. does Re: Ot: I. Fr: reference incomplete. Structured Michael Februarg National Sentencing high-prioritJ I as that. The and, I of was a to this have sentencing tool of jurisdiction-wide using racial statutorg Because, resources. Tonr!J projects, asked to sentencing 5, the Institute memo Sentencing, oreduce to each racial (Some and 1995 substantive disparities major topics to Corrections in offers for reform determinate a and offer elected their of [Joluntarg topic guidelines reasons innovations within sentencing Justice gender Sentencing research suggestions in turn mouement policies, rather assigned officials the that Research eHplained been differences, sentencing sentencing have justice than disparities tried: suggestions subject and Guidelines. to tried would has concerning hands-down political none to below, s!jstem. the!,J been link that and guidelines, disagree laws, to of generalig have concerning establish underwag found sentencing the I criteria, warrant research think and Part been background effectivelg about either mandatorg parole II there and and the it consideration, for of “structured priorities policies is mandatorg particularlg this ineffective most then nearlll are clear been paper memo but that to 25 a 37c in late Many should dollars, NIJ on managed mang research, gears. research Kansas, Michigan, implementation Montana, been new (mostlg mandatories). the unable penalties; California the has ‘lBs process commissions of introduced Below, of For be likeig Given for a some Arkansas, these presumptive the when has and new federal a and Washington, all in political high and new of effects I been that private have the fleHibilitg South round topics discuss NIJ As creating Oregon, of priority. in state inactiuitg private a are activitg, Missouri, funded been funded guidelines Margland. reasons result, Carolina, of of could but manj at a Utah, commissions alternate evaluation in handicapped or number sentencing work some foundations’ bg an how more be piecemeal, however, officials has and to Alaska, the omnibus considered in and in propose uoluntarg). it meant of than North Minnesota, cQ federal Massachusetts, policg spends research legislation subjects commissions will have Florida, and bg 25 which lack evaluation no Carolina, repeal choices the states agree government together, despite sentencing/corrections activitg. been of At on absence that Pennsgluania, has Wisconsin, to interest the or structured but competentlg have, theg no create been and Michigan, warrant oppose the of moment, profess as This significant sentencing of might sentencing for earlier have happened the in a credible is Oregon, enactment at criminal commission consideration. sentencing NW a had, Margiand, Oklahoma, themselves make. for least led pitg - approach evaluation eHample, changes or and evidence Virginia, in research guidelines since ten justice are Thus the of has in if implementation, patterns whether cutting-edge of or confinement guidelines so sentencing Carolina) recast programs reason crimes, programs rationale, Hg 1996 more approach to projects between and most funding There has than H. most eHisting for saved the and, standards, that Building as not as have adopted, than those s!Jstems. might one intermediate evaluations Es of new and prison sgstems a if been moneg, no include the device guidelines so, seldom was topic. and intermediate findings guidelines be evaluation Intermediate new how. diversions. some much effects the the considered. Other (North or to intermediate demonstrablg ones of intermediate alternatives reduced sanctions structure Another states more is (Penns!Jluania) intermediate of that on alter research aspire Carolina the sanctions, outcomes effective, Rs Sanctions might judges demand One prison-use might eHisting a judges’ and to sanctions result, movement affected might and sanctions on do be communitg trace have sanctions. or the so. for and among despite the Pennsylvania) into s!jstems discretionarg a look developed prison or effectiveness number been justice subjects the within recidivism Sentencing movement sentence-option-choice ten at intermediate its development, penalties. loathe one beds. are Were gears different of structured system new of of considering Jurisdictions to choices rates the to evaluations the earlier: H from Guidelines. determine of ones principal use processes piecemeal A sentencing eHisting sanctions, theoretical for number 1985 new between (North new new doing have to on enabling simultaneously likeliest sanctions programs state eHistence what sanctions sentencing client increase sanctions eHtended as for into effects with wags Massachusetts). of if policies many guidelines sentencing guidelines us takeover populations. B. to strategy of for legislation. the divert Sentencing policies. is are gears or are to guidelines different developed seldom many availability include chances organized unlikely adopted of could lower-risk to provide, guidelines for gears, operation Because come. North an One intermediate Guidelines approaches that integrating generate have by to option, sentencing and difficulty they an they achieve one Carolina judges offenders prison are state-wide REP often and of presume cannot community A unlikely findings and soliciting the funding to their sentencing will in crowding eHpressly sanctions paid guidelines Communitu more incorporating many from succeed generally goals are for scope to to of proposals corrections promising be jurisdictions confinement guide unavailable. at and local did and unless guidelines effective county if while and Corrections use policymakers’ this programs as or community-based intermediate community to means if inform them intermediate new when levels. acts intermediate evaluate unless are has and Since commissions for whose offer can the policymaking likely Rcts. been intermediate No their searches complete corrections they legislature be sanctions the matter the that to found It target are looks be (e.g., for to That combination is a likely path for man!,j states to follow but as get no systematic evidence is available on how the combination has worked. F’loreover, as a recent literature review by Dale Parent suggests, there are good reasons to be skeptical that the (not very well-done) evaluations in the 19lOs and 1980s of community corrections acts (“CCRs”) provide very useful insights into how CCFIs will work in the ‘90s and beyond. NILJshould consider supporting an evaluation of what has happened in states like North Carolina that have tried to combine guidelines with community corrections acts. These should include major qualitative components including case studies of the development and implementation of community corrections programs at the county level, as well as management studies of the operation of state offices charged to oversee statewide eHpansion of community corrections programming. C. The Effectiveness of Presumptive Guidelines. Guidelines systems vary substantially from state-to-state and they have been variously successful at achieving their stated goals. Nonetheless, there is widespread belief, based on evaluations now 12 years old, and older, and on the ability of some guidelines states to control prison population growth for eHtended periods, that presumptive sentencing guidelines are an effective device for establishing and implementing statewide policies, reducing disparities, and regulating prison population growth. Perhaps surprisingly, the evidence on which those beliefs are based is slight. The last comprehensive sentencing system evaluations funded by NW were of statutory determinate sentencing systems in California and North effective conventional Courts of gears, Pennsgluania’s, learn widelg as the guidelines both gears, earlier since changes as frlinnesota Richard did funded Carolina uoluntarg successful with near fund qualitative that U. the In since (Colorado, NW believed times. no Frase communitg The in future. light and wag a earlg new sgstems should major small and the the wisdom sentencing Effectiveness voluntarg as to and of sgste.ms, have Washington social, IBOs to publication arid the structure secondarg mostig) the It evaluations consider David have adopted corrections would Minnesota, quantitative, has not enormous that political, sentencing been. guidelines Boerner or achieved been and be guidelines issuing sentencing of data, substantialig analgsis in of comforting Rbt of Uoluntaru the that NW-funded It acts, scale and Washington, have presumptive would and Rssociates L their of recent an bg guidelines uoluntarg of bureaucratic now of one there RFP that’s the done discretion. Minnesota be goals, guidelines Guidelines. to revised past or for will National reports just mag small learn the more (Mar!Jland and comprehensive guidelines in sentencing not or and as have literature.) Margiand Oregon older that likeig secondarg conteHts data work of (Delaware’s useful, actiuitg on whg. Center For the been the new sgstems in and to as are at sgstems presumptive guidelines. the however, effectiveness and be for so sgstems of theg least in Florida), analgses not evaluations, adopted mid-’SBs recent In mang sentencing State Florida. eHperierice like did an addition, ten are can in to the (NIJ with in NIJ and be greater beginning states’ research make climate conventional of nothing to creation contemplated (Oklahoma, guidelines year-old possible repealed perceived cite inside is the guidelines sometimes E. as voluntary It new Nonetheless, avoid of or Prosecutorial and evidence would would of of (Maryland) voluntary in the outside (Arkansas, ineffectiveness, or such Montana, discussion possibly Wisconsin, going wisdom and recent ‘90s voluntary said be predict. guidelines systems of voluntary a evaluation down and to a systems worthwhile effectiveness commissions as voluntary of remains South Virginia, Discretion few be of Tennessee, lesser a judicially-imposed systems. If dead-end now guidelines first different, more states not, Carolina) voluntary guidelines with and judicial accurate is Missouri, step systems negative investment effective under that have would, the presumptive is and roads. The toward but people at have judges resistance statistical guidelines Louisiana, are recently 6uidellnes or best principal to Ohio) there findings if than whether commissions learn seen sentences successful, have presumptive to weak.) in and has fund ones. past many adopted as whether than half-a-loaf data have been and might Sustems. a never the potentially few an eHperience new Because states in would that concerned recently evaluation replace different now help earlier new been other the guidelines. (Michigan) lielawareans From at remain reason shift future voluntary of a better work fifteen- states times been and significant their political the that of power hostile for on one very than may and among make minimums judges some quantitative federal could evaluate account behavior alternate makers counterbalance adopted problem what and concerning in be to the prosecutors. true. to like it F. provide effects The sentences hate earl!J what sentencing difficult to in Mandatoru but its the and them, are EHcept, guideline issue have making mandatorg Minnesota most ‘90s, components, ducked effects eHtent in for on useful, some is deciding more discretion or for sentences. frlan!J the howeuer, controversial not there polic!J policgmakers. impossible approaches Minimums charging it. offenses of otherwise most dislike than going and minimums. judges, new The has how, choices. the speculation shifts part U.S. for federal awag been them, guidelines Most and primarg subject if and to especialig one Sentencing and destructive not policg--real at to obtain bargaining no Rithough and Rn commissions Prosecutors’ Guidelines. and NW-funded all, commission available formats prosecutors. serious FIFP to it emphasis to man!,j to s!Jstems would reasonable mandatories go that in take Commission-sponsored such of federal research on practices offense will are information invited guidelines Defense earlg be those have in views took on should projects ambivalent. affect predicting helpful prosecutorial courts, proportionalit!j ‘BBs discussed it sentencing--to predictions on and proposals are change, lawgers so be prosecutorial whether, project should to for more to seriousl!J because qualitative. believe poliqj how state other Mandatorg the and and miHed; to include into behavior how, research and the!J this with that to it since the no literature by that we have it wholesale future, to enabling minimums mandatory guidelines offenses supplant guidelines working evade offenses. works, serious Frank fund are federal was the no E. If not mandatories most an necessary Remington Mandatoru the not 1978s. legislation, under may mandatories that include process repeals in evaluation would with likely They guidelines) penalties Massachusetts learned jurisdictions Minnesota provide accumulated legislation which also There to the be studies of link and learn they Minimums. presumptive it from foster would previously current of a so of have they would to Lloyd have model how believe long much the sentencing (eHcept are under the in cynicism; also disagree. guidelines been the long mandatories. be Ohlin implementation likely the as fimerican other from q mandated Strictly become a which unjust new the which a worked by 19705. badly in few to states new guideline guidelines, the lawyers the system P’lassachusetts’s are lack guidelines means are speaking, inconclusive Bar wasted presumptive. U.S. studies 1950s Nonetheless, this minimum. implemented can The more the Foundation Sentencing works. of and way. ranges that emulate. Massachusetts political and opportunity mandatory find, of likely if mandatory judges the mandatory the adopted statistical However, for honestly For Many there commission Survey to formerly small under will Commission prepared predicate evade the penalties were would to mandatory minimums have evaluation the foreseeable directed effort, speaking, the penalties analyses undertake NlJ current been to new is of if not of the effects of mandatories on crime rates. The literatures could fairly be summarized as showing that mandatories have more undesirable side- effects than desirable direct effects, and that mandatories have no, or small and short-term, deterrent effects. However, mandatory penalties continue nonetheless to win the favor of many elected officials. It would be useful, I believe, for NIJ to fund a rigorous evaluation of newly enacted mandatories in one or more jurisdictions to investigate both the eHistence and scale of any demonstrable crime-reduction effects and to investigate the effects of enactment of such laws on court processes, including charging and bargaining patterns and sentencing outcomes. It is essential that the research designs contain both strong quantitative and strong qualitative elements; most of the recent efforts to isolate deterrent effects have consisted only of quantitative analyses of official data retrospectively collected and as a result it is impossible sensibly to speculate about the meaning and process eRplanations of findings. It may be that the policy process is impervious to practitioners’ and researchers’ knowledge of the dysfunctional effects of mandatories, but a recent, sophisticated, federally-funded study documenting those effects (assuming it did) would make much clearer the gap between policy and practice. On the other hand, if my predictions about likely findings proved wrong, it would be better to know that there are plausible grounds for hoping mandatories work as their proponents predict and that their passage can accordingly be attributed to something other than political cynicism. )O IL Racial Disparities in the Justice System. The key to establishing a research program on racial disparities is the starting premise. If the starting point is the conservative premise that disparities per se are unobjectionable, then the focus of research should be to identify the scale and sources of invidious bias that produces disparities that cannot be justified in terms of offenders’ crimes and criminal records. From this starting point, the federal disparities associated with the crack/powder distinction are unobjectionable because they result from the enforcement of content-neutral laws that blacks more often elect to violate. If this is the focus, there seems to me relatively little marginal benefit in an NIJ research initiative on this subject. There have already been so many case studies of police, prosecution, judicial, and correctional decision-making in relation to race that the learning increment from new NIJ-funded research seems likely to be slight. Likewise there seems little important to be learned from more of the aggregate NCUS/IJCR/prison population analyses like those of Blumstein and Langan. If the premise to the contrary is that racial (and ethnic) disparities are per se objectionable, there is a good bit of useful policy-relevant work NW could catalyze. B. Sentencing Case Studies. Race and gender effects are much more nuanced and contingent than crude bias theories contemplate. For ii Applicants the nature, establishing sentencing receive coupled proportion pleas guiltg (over that, rate neutral” people analUses another the but eHplanatorg men, and eHample, preceding more gender criminal of other NW result and the pleas and go harsher pretrial with eHample, practices that could and effects above should while to of laws. causes variables difference a in for variable prison the records, paragraph. small alienated, more race larger invigorate sentences. blacks, detention it “time be common of coincident of aduerseig seems has program or often asked sentences “guiltj racial controlled, that women for being served”). little coupled defiant, Ang true for a observation how for mitigates to A and now plea greatest of fourth or affect with women, document RFP tgpicallU blacks, that, long, on sentencing no with ethnic moribund pretrial Another non-cooperative discounts.” should defendants’ findings predictive is black controlling there sentences the and coupled among the that disparities are the be consistent detention is defendants. the effects is bodg sentenced case of less the plausibilitg the evidence black power patterns A with aggregate children both for lower of third opposite studies cooperative of of research minoritg defendants. the offense predicts finding concerning for the the is less level that uarg One is consistent of the on men sort crack/powder of statistical a harshig a various the is of powerful characteristics higher bg that procrustean. with defendants particular defendants imprisonment and described the earig-stage eHistence, whether For earlier race women, higher than finding “race with in falling other most as fundamentalig terms. Jamaican recent “black” term monolithic Americans criminological knowledge discrimination however, populations. primar!j Racial, devise disparate one research U.S.-origin We (occasionalig, A within B. undifferentiated Ethiopian a ethnic, Inside is visitor cause know Disaporepated research immigrants rudimentarg. not impact and were base. a Current seen uses (and the different would of and from from undifferentiated. single black immigrants; black disproportions h9pothesis, United design categories welfare gender as eHplicitlg research a and invest knowledge “racial residents a foreign or mass, A useful and Offending. white States, both serious that differences policg) in better group” white in or Hispanic). land offer of groups research will categorg. and see other in “Asians” most black of research Outside who research prison test Victimization, that characterized Canadians a themselves those often see plausible countries people in and saw aimed the each offending as and In the themselves behavioral program have white eigplanation. would America one Ontario, of do United other also at causal that as those verg group. not or improving In and think different see on patterns corrections black, various ethnic onlg think for States differences different as Oisparitij disparities eHplanation, groups these All eHample, that different through white, of the or (and that groups from are groups “Hispanics” all was other same, Studies. the England), and is, and long- recent from and as be should Were stereotypes, compleHities ameliorate by rural educated eHperiences those various victimization, establish policy-relevant at groups acknowledged is Bangladeshis Yugoslaus demographic disaggregated different obviously particular such peasant of have NIJ have Hispanic different first a a could problems and program as program of such groups, and true places, drastically second and and and group its or successive Poles knowledge significantly subgroups subgroup below in a studied defining Indians crime-participation system Rsian research the for of faced as to of group). in research be German Germany, Vietnamese the United anticipating different groups, by in processing. migration launched, differences by characteristic that are categories England, program researchers. enrich For different probably States, research is and on understanding Jamaicans offending not 1 migrants ethnic criminological waves it and within Finns could characteristics now even too For white, that groups, very has that thereby should differences eHample, Similarly, and available, (e.g., pay can different if and patterns shown. compared different black, all that Estonians and the undermine important Ethiopians the research not having research, truth to social the and different primarily if be groups in (for in reveal as with it eHperiences particular procrustean Hispanic. opportunity is offending, in probably threats were eHamples, subjects benefits. negative seldom in Sweden). and the the Canada, minority urban to primarily provide posed times are must of but to This