Effectiveness of Community based Correctional Programs: A Case Study

• DOI: 10.1177/0032885502238682
• Date: 01 December 2002
• Published date: 01 December 2002
• Author: Nancy Marion
• Subject Matter: Articles

10.1177/0032885502238682THE PRISON JOURNAL / December 2002Marion / COMMUNITY-BASED CORRECTIONAL PROGRAMS

EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNITY-

BASED CORRECTIONAL PROGRAMS:

A CASE STUDY

NANCY MARION

University of Akron

Community-based alternatives to prison claim to be moreeffective in reducing recidi-

vism than are traditional prisons, to be cheaper than prisons, and to reduce over-

crowding in prisons and jails. This study uses a case study approachof a community-

based program in the Midwest United States to determine if those community

corrections alternatives achieve those results. The findings from this case

study show that the recidivism rates of community corrections arelower than

those of the prison inmates only in some cases and that the costs are cheaper

only in some cases. It also shows that community corrections serve as a true

alternative to prison in some instances but more often only widens the net and

increases the state’s controlover criminal offenders.

Alternatives to traditional prison and jail confinementhave become popu-

lar in recent years as officials attempt to deal with overcrowdedcorrectional

facilities and the ever-increasing costs of imprisoning offenders.Alternative

sanctions have also been lauded for having lowerrecidivism rates than tradi-

tional prison settings. However,some research has shown that the presumed

benefits of community corrections may not exist. For example, Jackson, de

Keijser,and Michon (1995) noted that alternatives to custody “may not be so

cheap, may not be so effective in reducing recidivism, and they may not

always constitute real alternatives to prison” (p. 44). In writing that, Jackson

et al. recognized three primary goals underlying the majority of community-

based correctional programs: to protect the public’s interest (i.e., reduce

recidivism and thereby protect the public), to save fiscal resources of the

community, and to reduce overcrowding in jails and prisons. This analysis is

an attempt to determine if community corrections achieve these goals, using

a detailed case study of five community corrections programs.

THE PRISON JOURNAL, Vol. 82 No. 4, December 2002478-497

DOI: 10.1177/0032885502238682

© 2002 Sage Publications

478

EFFECTIVENESS (REDUCING RECIDIVISM)

One question frequently asked of community sanctions is, Do they work?

It is a difficult question to answer.Most community corrections are based on

the proposition that the programs can be more effective than traditional cor-

rections settings because they help the offender reintegrate into society and

establish a legitimate role in the community (Lawrence, 1991). But missing

from the literature is compelling evidence that sanctions decrease recidivism

(Jackson et al., 1995). Many researchers find that alternative sanctions are

not necessarily more effective than traditional prisons. In 1977, Pease,

Billingham, and Earnshaw found that 44% of a community service group

were reconvicted within 1 year of imposition of the sentence, whereas only

35% of a custodial group were reconvicted. Jones (1991) found that “more

community corrections than prison clients reoffended during the follow-up

period” (p. 61). Wright (1994) also found that prison was the more effective

method for reducing recidivism.

At the same time, however,other research shows that alternative sanctions

are more effective than a prison setting. Bol and Overwater compared per-

sons sentenced to a community service group versus those sentenced to a

prison term and found that 42% of the community service group were

reconvicted, whereas 54% of the prison group were reconvicted (cited in

Jackson et al., 1995). Langworthy and Latessa (1993, 1996), in both their

original study of a drunk-driving program and a 4-year follow-up study,

found that one program geared toward reducing recidivist behavior of

alcohol-related offenses was successful in reducing rates of recidivism to

below those who were sentenced to prison. Vito and Tewksbury (1998)

showed that the recidivismrates for the graduates of a drug court program are

remarkably lower than a comparison group who were not part of a drug court

program. They concluded that drug treatment programs can effectively

reduce recidivism rates. Other research supports the idea that alternative

sanctions are more effective than prisons in reducing future criminal behav-

ior by offenders (see Gendreau & Ross, 1979; Izzo & Ross, 1990; Palmer,

1992).

Yet other research findings are mixed. A study by Latessa, Travis,

Holsing, Turner, and Hartman (1997) showedthat rearrest rates for commu-

nity programs ranged from 34% to 63.5%, whereas the rearrest rate for prison

inmates was 59%. In addition, the reincarceration rates for the community

facilities ranged from 22.5% to 37%, whereas the reincarceration rate for

prison inmates was 27%. Langan (1998) compared recidivism rates of

offenders who receiveddifferent sanction modes to those who did not receive

the sanction. He found that during a 3-year follow-up period, the recidivism

Marion / COMMUNITY-BASED CORRECTIONAL PROGRAMS 479