Presentation on theme: "EMERGENCE IN 1980S/GOALS PROGRAMS BOOT CAMPS Intermediate Sanctions."— Presentation transcript:
EMERGENCE IN 1980S/GOALS PROGRAMS BOOT CAMPS Intermediate Sanctions
Emergence of Intermediate Sanctions Context of 1970s and 1980s Pragmatic concerns Conceptual/Sentencing concerns Filler for gap between probation/incarceration Probation not “tough” enough RAND report on felony probation
Goals of IMS Sold differently to conservatives and liberals Liberals Keep some folks out of prison (diversion) Better match crime/sentence (justice model) Conservatives Save money (diversion) Get tougher on probationers (reduce recidivism)
Corrections Continuum Fines, Restitution, Community Service Probation House arrest- with or w/o EM Intensive Supervision Probation/Parole Halfway houses RCCFs Day Reporting Centers Restitution Centers Boot Camps
Monetary/Service Sanctions VICTIMCOMMUNITY MONETARYRestitution ($)Fine/Day Fine SERVICEService restitution Community Service
Restitution Historically very old, resurgence first with victim’s rights movement, then RJ Restricted to compensation as direct result of crime Physical injuries, $ loss, counseling, HIV testing… Used on up to 30% of probationers Victims typically apply through prosecutor Restitution centers Indigent? Effectiveness
Community Service Community service order Rarely used as “stand alone” (condition of probation) Only 6% of felony sentences as “add-on” Not used widely in U.S. until late 1960s Rebirth under restorative justice For harms that cannot be repaired through restitution No effect on recidivism (not studied much) Diversion?
Fines/Day Fines Never caught on in U.S. for street crime Why? Where are fines used in U.S.? Contrast with Europe In Germany, 81% of adult criminal cases result in fine as only punishment Upsides of Fines? Flexible, add-on easily, could divert ($, social ties) Downside?
Home Confinement House arrest/home confinement as another “old” punishment Re-invented in the 1980s Sexier with electronic monitoring Passive vs. Active phone line; Remote location monitor GPS technology “drive by” Key issue = who responds and how Effective? Fair?
RCCF Half-way house one of the earliest forms of corrections History Modern Forms: Residential Community Corrections Facility Traditional Halfway house + Expanded services More public, larger, state level facilities Day reporting centers Restitution Centers
Correctional Boot Camps Emergence in the early 1980s Recycling of many old ideas (labor/discipline) Goals Reduce prison crowding (save money) Reduce recidivism Provide additional sentencing option Nature of boot camps Short, military style, physical labor/drill Young, lower risk offenders Deterrence based, though some have treatment
Boot Camp Article Meta-analysis of Boot Camps Literally a study of studies Compute effect size for every boot camp evaluation study Effect size = how much effect did it have Their measure of effect size = odds ratio CONTROL GROUP RECIDIVISM = ODDS RATIO BOOT CAMP RECIDISM 1 = no effect, less than one is bad effect, greater than one is good (reduce crime) effect
Boot Camp Findings Average odds ratio across all of the studies was roughly 1 The average does hide some meaningful variation 27 studies found no differences 8 comparisons favored control group, 9 favored the boot campers Key question? Factors that might explain variation in effectiveness