Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessing the Effectiveness of Correctional Sanctions

Journal of Quantitative Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Cite this article

Abstract

Objectives

Despite the dramatic expansion of the US correctional system in recent decades, little is known about the relative effectiveness of commonly used sanctions on recidivism. The goal of this paper is to address this research gap, and systematically examine the relative impacts on recidivism of four main types of sanctions: probation, intensive probation, jail, and prison.

Methods

Data on convicted felons in Florida were analyzed and propensity score matching analyses were used to estimate relative effects of each sanction type on 3-year reconviction rates.

Results

Estimated effects suggest that less severe sanctions are more likely to reduce recidivism.

Conclusions

The findings raise questions about the effectiveness of tougher sanctioning policies for reducing future criminal behavior. Implications for future research, theory, and policy are also discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. There is debate about what constitutes more severe punishment. Some scholarship, for example, suggests that offenders may perceive supervision-based sanctions as more severe than prison (Crouch 1993; Petersilia and Deschenes 1994; Deschenes et al. 1995; Spelman 1995; Petersilia 1997; May et al. 2005). In general, extant theory and research does not provide a clear answer (see, e.g., Paternoster 1987; Nagin 1998; Pratt et al. 2006). Here, we recognize that although incarceration typically is viewed as a tougher sanction, offenders’ perceptions of severity may vary depending on the conditions of incarceration and supervision.

  2. In Florida, intensive probation is officially termed “community control.” It typically includes house arrest, curfew, and contact restrictions greater than that of traditional probation.

  3. Ancillary analyses using replacement, 1-to-many matching, and various caliper specifications revealed substantively similar findings. These results are available upon request.

  4. Many inmates serve approximately a year in prison. For example, for Florida inmates released during the years covered in this study, approximately 15–30 % of released inmates in a given year served a year or less (see Table 4c, Time Served in DC Custody, Florida Department of Corrections Inmate Release reports—http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/index.html). To illustrate, in 1994, over 28 % of inmates served one year or less, and in 2002 almost 17 % did so. Nationally, the same pattern holds; for example, the median time served among state prison inmates released in 2008 was 16 months (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2011).

  5. These analyses differ from those that appear in an earlier study by Mears et al. (2012), which assessed prison effects on recidivism, in several ways. There is no focus here on gender differences in the effects of incarceration; we examine two groups of incarcerated prison inmates; we focus on the relative effects of four types of sanctions to each other and not solely prison versus other sanctions; and we make no arguments here about varying differences that the types of sanctions may exert on types of recidivism. Ancillary analyses using the full samples (and thus 1-to-many matching analyses) and other treatment group sample sizes identified results that were substantively and statistically similar; these analyses are available upon request. Use of the sub-samples enables us to obtain estimates based on a more rigorous matching approach (e.g., 1-to-1 matching and narrow caliper settings).

  6. For all 14 models, the variables that typically predict sentences were statistically significant in the expected directions. Because each model had a slightly different specification, there is no parsimonious way to present the full set of regression results. They are available upon request.

References

  • Adams K (1992) Adjusting to prison life. In: Tonry MH (ed) Crime and justice. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 275–359

    Google Scholar 

  • Apel RJ, Sweeten G (2010) Propensity score matching in criminology and criminal justice. In: Piquero AR, Weisburd D (eds) The handbook of quantitative criminology. Springer, New York, pp 543–562

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Austin J (2011) Making imprisonment unprofitable. Criminol Public Policy 10:629–635

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bales WD, Piquero AR (2012) Assessing the impact of imprisonment on recidivism. J Exp Criminol 8:71–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker SO, Caliendo M (2007) Sensitivity analysis for average treatment effects. Stata J 7:71–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker S, Ichino Andrea (2002) Estimation of average treatment effects based on propensity score. Stata J 2:358–377

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckett K (1997) Making crime pay: law and order in contemporary American politics. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckett K, Western B (2001) Governing social marginality: welfare, incarceration, and the transformation of state policy. Punishm Soc 3:43–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumstein A (2011) Bringing down the US prison population. Prison J 91:12S–26S

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bobo LD, Thompson V (2006) Unfair by design: the war on drugs, race, and the legitimacy of the criminal justice system. Soc Res 73:445–472

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonta J, Wallace-Capretta S, Rooney J (2000) A quasi-experimental evaluation of an intensive rehabilitation supervision program. Crim Justice Behav 27:312–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonta J, Rugge T, Scott T-L, Bourgon G, Yessine AK (2008) Exploring the black box of community supervision. J Offender Rehabil 47:248–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bottoms A (1999) Interpersonal violence and social order in prisons. In: Tonry MH, Petersilia J (eds) Prisons. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 205–281

    Google Scholar 

  • Braithwaite J (1989) Crime, shame, and reintegration. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bureau of Justice Statistics (2011) Table 8. State prison releases, 2008: time served in prison, by offense and release type. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Caliendo M, Kopeinig S (2008) Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching. J Econ Surv 22:31–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen MK, Shapiro JM (2007) Do harsher prison conditions reduce recidivism? A discontinuity-based approach. Am Law Econ Rev 9:1–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clear TR, Hardyman PL (1990) The new intensive supervision movement. Crime Delinquency 36:42–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crouch BM (1993) Is incarceration really worse? Analysis of offenders’ preferences for prison over probation. Justice Q 10:67–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cullen FT, Gendreau P (2000) Assessing correctional rehabilitation: policy, practice, and prospects. In: Horney J (ed) Policies, processes, and decisions of the criminal justice system. National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC, pp 109–175

    Google Scholar 

  • Cullen FT, Jonson CL, Nagin DS (2011) Prisons do not reduce recidivism: the high cost of ignoring science. Prison J 91:48S–65S

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davey JD (1998) The politics of prison expansion: winning elections by waging war on crime. Praeger, Westport

    Google Scholar 

  • Deschenes E, Piper S, Turner JP (1995) Intensive community supervision in Minnesota: a dual experiment in prison diversion and enhanced supervised release. RAND Corp, Santa Monica

    Google Scholar 

  • DiPrete TA, Gangl M (2004) Assessing bias in the estimation of causal effects: Rosenbaum bounds on matching estimators and instrumental variables estimation with imperfect instruments. Sociol Methodol 34:271–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durlauf SN, Nagin DS (2011) Imprisonment and crime: can both be reduced? Criminol Public Policy 10:13–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garland D (ed) (2001) Mass imprisonment: social causes and consequences. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Gendreau P, Goggin C, Cullen FT, Andrews DA (2000) The effects of community sanctions and incarceration on recidivism. Forum Correct Res 12:10–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaze LE (2011) Correctional populations in the United States, 2010. Bureau of Justice Statistics, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottschalk M (2006) The prison and the gallows: the politics of mass incarceration in America. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottschalk M (2011) The past, present, and future of mass incarceration in the United States. Criminol Public Policy 10:483–504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guo S, Fraser MW (2010) Propensity score analysis: statistical methods and applications. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Hipp JR, Petersilia J, Turner S (2010) Parolee recidivism in California: the effect of neighborhood context and social service agency characteristics. Criminology 48:947–979

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irwin J (2005) The warehouse prison: disposal of the new dangerous class. Roxbury Press, Los Angeles

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonson CL (2011) The impact of imprisonment on reoffending: a meta-analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati, OH

  • King RD, Massoglia M, Macmillan R (2007) The context of marriage and crime: gender, the propensity to marry, and offending in early adulthood. Criminology 45:33–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kovandzic TV, Vieraitis LM (2005) The effect of county-level prison population growth on crime rates. Criminol Public Policy 5:213–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kubrin ChE, Stewart EA (2006) Predicting who reoffends: the neglected role of neighborhood context in recidivism studies. Criminology 44:165–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence R (1991) Reexamining community corrections models. Crime Delinquency 37:449–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt SD (1996) The effect of prison population size on crime rates: evidence from prison overcrowding litigation. Q J Econ 111:319–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Listwan SJ, Sullivan CJ, Agnew R, Cullen FT, Colvin M (2011) The pains of imprisonment revisited: the impact of strain on inmate recidivism. Justice Q 30:144–168

    Google Scholar 

  • Loughran TA, Mulvey EP, Schubert CA, Fagan J, Piquero AR, Losoya SH (2009) Estimating a dose-response relationship between length of stay and future recidivism in serious juvenile offenders. Criminology 47:699–740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie DL (2006) What works in corrections: reducing the criminal activities of offenders and delinquents. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Marvell TB, Moody CE Jr (1994) Prison population growth and crime reduction. J Quant Criminol 10:109–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • May DC, Wood PB, Mooney JL, Minor KI (2005) Predicting offender-generated exchange rates: implications for a theory of sentence severity. Crime Delinquency 51:373–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDougall C, Cohen MA, Swaray R, Perry A (2003) The costs and benefits of sentencing: a systematic review. Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci 587:160–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mears DP (2010) American criminal justice policy. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mears DP, Cochran JC, Bales WD (2012) Gender differences in the effects of prison on recidivism. J Crim Just 40:370–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagin DS (1998) Criminal deterrence research at the outset of the twenty-first century. Crime Justice 23:1–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagin DS, Cullen FT, Jonson CL (2009) Imprisonment and reoffending. Crime Justice 38:115–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paternoster R (1987) The deterrent of the perceived certainty and severity of punishment: a review of the evidence and issues. Justice Q 4:173–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paternoster R, Brame R (2008) Reassessing race disparities in Maryland capital cases. Criminology 46:971–1008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petersilia J (1995) A crime control rationale for reinvesting in community corrections. The Prison J 75:479–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petersilia J (1997) Probation in the United States. Crime Justice 22:149–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petersilia J (2003) When prisoners come home: parole and prisoner reentry. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersilia J, Turner S (1993) Intensive probation and parole. Crime Justice 17:281–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petersilia J, Deschenes EP (1994) Perceptions of punishment: Inmates and staff rank the severity of prison versus intermediate sanctions. The Prison J 74:306–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piehl AM, LoBuglio SF (2005) Does supervision matter? In: Travis J, Visher C (eds) Prisoner reentry and public safety in America. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Pratt TC (2008) Addicted to incarceration: corrections policy and the politics of misinformation in the United States. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Pratt TC, Cullen FT, Blevins KR, Daigle LE, Madensen TD (2006) The empirical status of deterrence theory. In: Cullen FT, Wright JP, Blevins KR (eds) Taking stock: the status of criminological theory. Transaction Books, New Brunswich, pp 367–396

    Google Scholar 

  • Raphael S, Stoll MA (2009) Why are so many Americans in prison? In: Raphael S, Stoll MA (eds) Do prisons make us safer? The benefits and costs of the prison boom. Russell Sage Foundation, New York, pp 27–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Reitz KR (2011) Sentencing. In: Wilson JQ, Petersilia J (eds) Crime and public policy. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 467–498

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB (1983) The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70:41–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB (1984) Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. J Am Stat Assoc 79:516–524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenfeld R, Messner SF (2009) The crime drop in comparative perspective: the impact of the economy and imprisonment on American and European burglary rates. Br J Sociol 60:445–471

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson RtJ (1986) The effects of formal and informal social control. Crime Justice 8:271–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson RJ (2010) Gold standard myths: observations on the experimental turn in quantitative criminology. J Quant Criminol 26:489–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon J (2007) Governing through crime: how the war on crime transformed American democracy and created a culture of fear. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith LG, Akers RL (1993) A comparison of recidivism of Florida’s community control and prison: a five-year survival analysis. J Res Crime Delinquency 30:267–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith P, Goggin C, Gendreau P (2002) The effects of prison sentences and intermediate sanctions on recidivism: general effects and individual differences. Solicitor General of Canada, Ontario

    Google Scholar 

  • Snodgrass G, Matthew AA, Blokland J, Haviland A, Nieuwbeerta P, Nagin DS (2011) Does the time cause the crime? An examination of the relationship between time served and reoffending in the Netherlands. Criminology 49:1149–1194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spelman W (1995) The severity of intermediate sanctions. J Res Crime Delinquency 32:107–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spelman W (2000) The limited importance of prison expansion. In: Blumstein A, Wallman J (eds) The crime drop in America. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 97–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Tonry M (2011) Making peace, not a desert: penal reform should be about values not justice reinvestment. Criminol Public Policy 10:637–649

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tonry M, Lynch M (1996) Intermediate sanctions. Crime Justice 20:99–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Travis J, Visher C (eds) (2005) Prisoner reentry and crime in America. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Useem B, Piehl AM (2008) Prison state: the challenge of mass incarceration. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Villettaz P, Killias M, Zoder I (2006) The effects of custodial vs. noncustodial sentences on re-offending: a systematic review of the state of knowledge. The Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • Welsh WN, Harris PW (2008) Criminal justice policy and planning, 3rd edn. LexisNexis, Anderson Publishing, Dayton

    Google Scholar 

  • Western B (2007) Punishment and inequality in America. Russell Sage Foundation, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • White MD, Saunders J, Fisher C, Mellow J (2012) Exploring inmate reentry in a local jail setting: implications for outreach, service use, and recidivism. Crime Delinquency 58:124–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winship C, Morgan SL (1999) The estimation of causal effects from observational data. Annu Rev Sociol 25:659–706

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Peter Austin, Sam Field, and Brian Stults for their helpful comments and suggestions during the development of this paper. We also thank the Florida Department of Corrections for permission to use their data. The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not reflect those of the Department of Corrections.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Criminology, University of South Florida, 4202 East Fowler Avenue, SOC 324, Tampa, FL, 33620-7200, USA

    Joshua C. Cochran

  2. College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida State University, 634 West Call Street, Tallahassee, FL, 32306-1127, USA

    Daniel P. Mears & William D. Bales

Authors
  1. Joshua C. Cochran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel P. Mears
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. William D. Bales
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Joshua C. Cochran or Daniel P. Mears.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cochran, J.C., Mears, D.P. & Bales, W.D. Assessing the Effectiveness of Correctional Sanctions. J Quant Criminol 30, 317–347 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-013-9205-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-013-9205-2

Keywords

search

Navigation