In 1996, Anderson and Dyson published a study to investigate boot camp success and offender risk assessment for CRIPP (Court Regimented Intensive Probation Program) participants. This study was conducted on 1225 male boot camp graduates. Logistic regression was used to determine which participants were more likely to reoffend after boot camp. Independent variables were recoded for the logistical regression model analysis used in this study. The effect of a prior felony conviction increases the probability of failure by a significant 27%. Those found to be most likely to recidivate are those who have prior felony convictions, prior drug offenses, prior personal offenses, prior misdemeanors, and be between the ages of 17-20. This study indicates that CRIPP reduces future offending behaviors after release. The data supports this theory.
In 1996, Mark Jones published a study which asked the question, "Do boot camp graduates make better probationers?" Boot camp graduates were compared to individuals who entered the same probation system through other methods, such as court ordered probation. Jones randomly selected a sample size 0f 307 participants' in the SIPP (Super Intensive Probation Program. Age was correlated with being a boot camp graduate, the younger the client the more likely they were to graduate from boot camp. The individuals from this study were all male. Female boot camps are available, but this study revolved around a male boot camp. Most boot camp participants were single, and non-boot camp graduates had more prior convictions. Jones used descriptive statistics analysis, Chi-square and F value analysis, and logistic regression analysis to analyze the data collected. The study showed that non-...
... middle of paper ...
...idea that alternatives to incarceration actually work. Not only do these alternative programs reduce the prison population, they also decrease costs to tax payers, and help assist individuals in changing their life course. The last study that I looked at, referring to long term mandatory sentencing laws, shows the impact of not utilizing alternative programs. It supports the idea that not only are we paying for the minor drug offense offender, we are also paying for their children to be raised within the system. Alternatives to incarceration do work. The findings of the previous studies support the idea that we can make advances in our society, without having to lock people up for long periods of time. The findings also support the theory that these alternative programs are more sensitive to the needs of the offenders, therefore, they produce better results.
...(2004). Applying the principles of effective intervention to juvenile correctional programs. Corrections Today, 66(7), 26-29. Retrieved from http://ehis.ebscohost.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=4bd9d7f2-8ac5-42c6-a100-a2443eda9cbf@sessionmgr4002&vid=1&hid=4213
A 1997 RAND Corporation study found that treatment of heavy drug users was almost ten times more cost effective in reducing drug use, sales, and drug-related crime than longer mandatory sentences (Echols, 2014). Other studies have shown that mandatory penalties have no demonstrable marginal or short-term effects on overall crime reduction either. Congress established mandatory sentences in order to incarcerate high-level drug criminals, but according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, only 11 percent of drug charged prisoners fit that description (Echols, 2014). Most of those incarcerated are low-level offenders, whose spots in drug trafficking are easily filled by other people. Mandatory minimum sentencing is essentially a waste of scarce criminal justice resources and federal funds that could be used elsewhere, and The Smarter Sentencing Act’s reduction of mandatory minimums can be the first step in eliminating minimum sentencing altogether. Ideally, given the opportunity for discretion, judges would be more inclined to issue more effective alternatives to incarceration, such as rehabilitation programs and/or
In-prison and post-release vocational training and work programs evaluations have shown that they are considered to be most effective, as they greatly reduce the rate of recidivism. Steady employment and educational services are some of the main factors in delaying or preventing an individual from re-offending in the first three years following release. More reentry programs are using the comprehensive strategy in response to what research and evaluations have found. Comprehensive strategies are applied in the state and local levels of government, mainly relying on community-based groups to coordinate and provide services for those re-entering society. These programs usually start before a prisoners release and provide assistance in receiving employment, housing, substance abuse, and mental health
Greenwood, P., & Zimring, F. (1985). One more chance: The pursuit of promising intervention strategies for chronic juvenile offenders. (Research Report). Pittsburgh: Rand Corporation.
Juvenile delinquency is a relatively new phenomenon. For this reason, society’s reactions and solutions to the problem of delinquency are also modern developments. The United States developed the first youth court in 1899 and is now home to many new and formerly untested methods of juvenile rehabilitation and correction. One of many unique programs within the Juvenile Justice system, boot camps are institutions designed to keep delinquent juveniles out of traditional incarceration facilities and still provide a structured method of punishment and rehabilitation. Boot camps developed in the early 1990s and quickly proliferated throughout the nation. Specifically, they are “…short-term residential programs modeled after military basic training facilities” (Meade & Steiner, 2010). Designed with the goal of reducing recidivism and preventing violent offenses, boot camps target non-violent individuals under the age of 18 and typically exclude already violent offenders. In theory, boot camps apprehend juveniles while they are committing minor delinquency and prevent more-serious crime by “giving the juvenile offender a more optimistic, community oriented outlook” (Ravenell, 2002). Fundamentally, boot camps have four central purposes; rehabilitation, punishment, deterrence, and cost control (Muscar, 2008).
...t of people who return back to a law breaking mentality after they get released from prison. When you release people instead use these alternatives versus confinement it is less of a waste of expensive resources, taxpayer’s money, as well as time. A medium between control and treatment needs to be met in all of the prisons, or jails. Some men or women need more strict conditions and supervision practices while others may just need more of the services that should be offered such as rehabilitation, and alcohol or drug prevention. Any of these options will not be easy nor diminish this overcrowding issue quickly. It will take time, patience, and cooperation with both the inmates or ex-offenders family, friends, courts as well as law enforcement and jails.
For county jails, the problem of cost and recidivism is exacerbated by budgetary constraints and various state mandates. Due to the inability of incarceration to satisfy long-term criminal justice objectives and the very high expenditures associated with the sanction, policy makers at various levels of government have sought to identify appropriate alternatives (Luna-Firebaugh, 2003, p.51-66). I. Alternatives to incarceration give courts more options. For example, it’s ridiculous that the majority of the growth in our prison populations in this country is due to people being slamming in jail just because they were caught using drugs. So much of the crime on the streets of our country is drug-related.
Since their beginning in 1983 in Georgia, boot camps have spread to half the States and have gained wide popular appeal for their "get tough" policies. Proponents of boot camps cite their potential for rehabilitating offenders and curbing future criminal behavior. Opponents caution that more information is needed on a variety of issues including costs and the potential for abuse of power. Research into boot camps began with a 1988 study of Louisiana's boot camp program and continued with a multi-site evaluation in 1989 (Cowels, 1995). Fueled primarily by growth in the number of offenders incarcerated during the past decade and changing views of the role of punishment and treatment in the correctional system. Shock incarceration programs, or "boot camps" as they have been more recently called, have emerged as an increasingly popular alternative sanction for nonviolent crimes.
Not everyone loves the ideas of alternatives to prison because alternatives to prison seem to work only when there is a limited number of cases that adhere to the sentence, However, when places like California is spending more money on their prison systems than on actual education, alternatives to prison seem to be the best choice (David, 2006).
Wormith, J. S., Althouse, R., Simpson, M., Reitzel, L. R., Fagan, T. J., & Morgan, R. D. (2007). The rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders: The current landscape and some future directions for correctional psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(7), 879-892.
Introduction: Recidivism or, habitual relapses into crime, has time and time again proven to be an issue among delinquents, which thereby increases the overall juvenile prison population. This issue has become more prevalent than what we realize. Unless a unit for measuring a juvenile’s risk of recidivism is enacted and used to determine a system to promote effective prevention, than the juvenile prison population will continue to increase. Our court system should not only focus on punishing the said juvenile but also enforce a program or policy that will allow for prevention of recidivism. So the question remains, how can recidivism in the juvenile prison population be prevented so that it is no longer the central cause for increased juvenile delinquency? Simply put, we must create a means of measuring juvenile’s level of risk and in turn, form an effective rehabilitation program that will decrease their risk level for future recidivism.
Esperian, John H. "The Effect of Prison Education Programs on Recidivism." Journal of Correctional Education 61.4 (2010): 316-334. ProQuest. Web. 2 Nov. 2013.
It was this effort that identified the problem as failures of the judicial process. These failures included sluggish courts, increased levels of recidivism, and a significant loss of public trust (Ballenstedt, 2008). To solve the problem, the program takes a multifaceted approach to punishment in non-violent cases. Through the program, justices have more options available to them when sentencing such offenses as drug possession, prostitution, or even shoplifting. The concept combines social services with punishment in order to reduce reliance on expensive and ineffective short-term jail sentences for non-violent offenders and boost the community’s confidence in the system (Ballenstedt, 2008).
Incarceration has been the center of the United States justice system ever since the opening of the nation’s first prison. In order to understand how the aspects of the first corrections institutions correlate to later correctional practices seen today. Whether it was temporary or permanent, there has always been some form of detainment for offenders, and they were always held against their will. Imprisonment of offenders in earlier times was done primarily to hold the accused until the authorities determined the offender’s actual punishment. Jails and prisons create a vicious and expensive cycle of crime that usually just end up overcrowding correctional facilities.
Esperian, J. H. (2010). The effect of prison education programs on recidivism. Journal of Correctional Education, 61(4), 316-334. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/871418247?accountid=38223