Are Jail Sanctions More Punitive Than Community-Based Punishments? An Examination Into the Perceived Severity of Alternative Sanctions in Community Supervision

• Published date: 01 June 2020
• Date: 01 June 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0887403419870848
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403419870848

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2020, Vol. 31(5) 696 –720

© The Author(s) 2019

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0887403419870848

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjp

Article

Are Jail Sanctions More

Punitive Than Community-

Based Punishments? An

Examination Into the

Perceived Severity of

Alternative Sanctions in

Community Supervision

Eric J. Wodahl1, Brett E. Garland2,

and Kimberly Schweitzer1

Abstract

The use of sanctions in community supervision has received considerable attention in

recent years. Fueled in large part by the attention given to the swift, certain, and fair

(SCF) sanctioning model, many agencies have adopted sanctioning programs, which

often rely heavily on the use of short-term jail incarceration. In addition to jail, there

exist a number of alternative, community-based punishments that can be utilized

to respond to instances of noncompliance, including enhanced drug testing and

community service hours. Little is known, however, about how individuals perceive

community-based sanctions compared with jail. This study addresses this issue by

examining perceptions of sanctions among individuals under community supervision.

Survey findings indicate that community-based punishments are not viewed as being

substantially less punitive than jail incarceration. In addition, perceptions of sanction

severity are influenced by a variety of individual, experiential, and supervision-level

factors. The policy implications of the study findings are discussed.

Keywords

probation, sanctions, revocation, SCF

1University of Wyoming, Laramie, USA

2Missouri State University, Springfield, USA

Corresponding Author:

Eric J. Wodahl, Department of Criminal Justice and Sociology, University of Wyoming, Dept. 3197, 1000

E. University Ave., Laramie, WY 82071, USA.

Email: ewodahl@uwyo.edu

870848CJPXXX10.1177/0887403419870848Criminal Justice Policy ReviewWodahl et al.

research-article2019

Wodahl et al. 697

High failure rates in probation and parole supervision have been a lingering issue in

community corrections for the last several decades. Driven by a variety of factors,

including an increase in supervision conditions, new drug testing technologies, and

the proliferation of more intense supervision programs, probation, and parole success

rates fell sharply at the end of the 20th century (Wodahl, Ogle, & Heck, 2011). The

consequences of this trend have been substantial and far-reaching. Most notably,

community corrections failures are a main driver of prison growth, accounting for

over half of all new admissions in many states (The PEW Charitable Trusts, 2018). In

response, a number of jurisdictions have implemented policies designed to both

reduce revocation rates and limit the consequences stemming from supervision fail-

ures (Lawrence, 2008).

One approach that has received considerable attention in recent years is the use of

graduated or administrative sanctions (hereinafter referred to as simply “sanctions”).

Sanctions refer to punishments imposed by the supervising officer or court in response

to noncompliant behavior on behalf of the probationer or parolee that do not involve

the revocation of supervision (Taxman, Soule, & Gelb, 1999). For example, a proba-

tion officer or judge might sanction an individual to a short jail term or require him to

undergo enhanced drug testing as response to a positive drug test or other technical

violation.

In recent years, a refashioned approach to sanctioning designed to boost supervi-

sion success rates has been heralded in many correctional circles as a revolutionary

strategy to improve public safety and ease financial strains on government budgets

caused by incarceration. This new strategy, often referred to as the swift, certain, and

fair (SCF) approach, draws from principles embodied within the frameworks of deter-

rence and operant conditioning (Kleiman, Kilmer, & Fisher, 2014). Both theories pro-

pose that negative behaviors, such as crime and noncompliance with supervision

conditions, can be discouraged if meaningful sanctions are imposed speedily, with

certainty, and with a level of punitive force commensurate to the severity of a person’s

wrongdoing (Marlowe & Kirby, 1999). SCF sanctions as administered in community

supervision contexts are purportedly unique given that they are typically much shorter

in duration and less intense than what has traditionally been imposed. The SCF move-

ment also places a new emphasis on addressing every specified supervision violation

with some type of punitive response, thus striving to ensure the certainty aspect of

punishment is achieved.

Several studies examining the impact of the SCF strategy have reported favorable

findings (Grommon, Cox, Davidson, & Bynum, 2013; Hawken & Kleiman, 2009;

Kilmer, Nicosia, Heaton, & Midgette, 2013), although wide-ranging enthusiasm really

catapulted from Hawken and Kleiman’s (2009) evaluation of the Hawaii Opportunity

Probation and Enforcement (HOPE) program. HOPE probationers were brought

before a judge within 72 hr of missing a probation meeting or receiving a positive drug

test and were given brief jail sentences for the violations. Using a randomized control

design with a 1-year follow-up, Hawken and Kleiman observed that HOPE partici-

pants had approximately half the rearrest and revocation rates and half the number of

days incarcerated as regular probationers. Several years later, Hamilton, Campbell,