Agency Directors’ Reflections on “Success” in Community Corrections: The Role of Traditional and Alternative Measures

• Published date: 01 February 2024
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/08874034231221433
• Author: Kellie D. Alexander,Jeffrey S. Nowacki,Tara Opsal,Shelby Sims
• Date: 01 February 2024

https://doi.org/10.1177/08874034231221433

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2024, Vol. 35(1) 41 –60

© The Author(s) 2023

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/08874034231221433

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjp

Article

Agency Directors’ Reflections

on “Success” in Community

Corrections: The Role of

Traditional and Alternative

Measures

Kellie D. Alexander1*, Jeffrey S. Nowacki1,

Tara Opsal1, and Shelby Sims1

Abstract

Community corrections has risen in popularity as a method to reduce incarcerated

populations. Although researchers have pointed to the value of thinking about success

outside of the traditional recidivism metric, many of the agencies that engage in this

sort of work are evaluated by oversight agencies based on traditional metrics such

as recidivism and program completion. To understand how alternative measures of

success are integrated into different dimensions, we surveyed a sample of leaders across

community corrections agencies in six states and asked them to share their perceptions

about the goals of their agency, the programming they offer, and the metrics to which

they are held accountable; we also examined their mission statements. Responses from

more than 30 agencies indicate there is a cultural space and a pragmatic use for agencies

to integrate alternative measures more formally into their assessment processes but

that strictures from oversight agencies are a notable obstacle.

Keywords

community corrections, desistance, recidivism

The reliance on community corrections to administer justice, enhance public safety,

and accomplish rehabilitation and reintegration of its clientele has grown consider-

ably across the United States. In fact, by 2020, the number of adults on community

1Colorado State University, Fort Collins, USA

*Authors listed alphabetically.

Corresponding Author:

Jeffrey S. Nowacki, Department of Sociology, Colorado State University, B264 Clark Building, Fort

Collins, CO 80523-1784, USA.

Email: Jeffrey.Nowacki@colostate.edu

1221433CJPXXX10.1177/08874034231221433Criminal Justice Policy ReviewAlexander et al.

research-article2023

42 Criminal Justice Policy Review 35(1)

supervision was nearly 3.9 million people—a threefold increase since 1980 (Kaeble,

2021; Urahn et al., 2018). Despite the focus of research on mass incarceration

trends, most people under correctional supervision experience it via community

corrections. For example, in 2018, nearly seven out of 10 corrections-involved

individuals were under a term of community supervision (Maruschak & Minton,

2020). Several factors have influenced this growth. These include a fiscal crisis that

forced states to limit their use of jail and prison and the progressive belief that com-

munity corrections could be a more just, efficient, and effective way to contend

with the “crime problem.”

Because of this growth, researchers have asked a variety of research questions

about these organizations. For instance, research has examined types of supervision

strategies (Barnes et al., 2010; Blasko & Taxman, 2018; Bonta et al., 2021; Kennealy

et al., 2012; Pearson et al., 2016), evidence-based programming (Dewey et al., 2020;

Hollis et al., 2019; Hsieh et al., 2021; Lurigio et al., 2012; Pearson et al., 2016), as

well as best practices for reentry and reintegration (Chin & Dandurand, 2012;

Costanza et al., 2015; Fox, 2012; Frisman et al., 2010; Galletta et al., 2021; Geller &

Curtis, 2011; Glavin, 2012; Gunnison et al., 2015; Harding et al., 2017; K. E. Moore

et al., 2020; Wallace et al., 2016). In addition, many researchers have focused on

understanding predictors of success on the client and organizational level. However,

this research has not yet examined the measures that agencies themselves use to

assess the work they do and how they value these measures (Iratzoqui & Metcalfe,

2017; Spence & Haas, 2015).

Scholars have traditionally evaluated the organizational efficacy of community

corrections agencies through recidivism. Organizations use rates of recidivism as a

comparable standard of measurement across organizations to assess successful

offender rehabilitation. While criminologists recognize recidivism as a widely uti-

lized measure of success, researchers have not examined how alternative measures

of success affect directors’ perceptions of their work, agency mission statements, or

the outcomes reported to oversight agencies. Examining how community correc-

tions leadership think about the success of their own agencies and their organiza-

tional goals provides an opportunity to examine how alternative metrics are

incorporated into community corrections. Thus, in this article, we focus on filling

this gap by examining the broad research question: To what extent are alternative

measures of success integrated into different dimensions of community corrections

agencies?

Given that our interest is to understand the ways that alternative measures of suc-

cess appear in the work that agencies value and do, the literature review focuses on

how research has measured “success.” In particular, we illuminate how scholars have

used recidivism to measure organizational and client success. In addition, we empha-

size the ways that research has moved beyond recidivism alone as a measure of suc-

cess, drawing on theories of desistance and harm reduction to inform alternative

success measures. To answer our research questions, we draw on survey results of

community corrections agencies conducted in several states.