Alternatives to Incarceration

Alternatives to Incarceration

Structural Liberty Restrictions

Incarceration

Boot Camps

Semi-Incarceration

Probation

Probation is considered the least restrictive form of punishment in relation to incarceration. With probation, individuals should remain in their own residence.

Restrictions as a Form of Punishment

Psychological Restrictions

Spatial Restrictions

See more about curfews, area restrictions, requirements to be a particular place for a set period of time (i.e., for treatment, for community service, etc.), and requirements that limit interaction with friends, colleagues, or support systems. Also House arrest is considered.

Financial Restrictions

Resources

Further Reading

  • Clear, T. R. (2011). A private-sector, incentives-based model for justice reinvestment. Criminology & Public Policy, 10(3), 585-608.
  • Council of State Governments. (2010a). About the project. Council of State Governments Justice Center. Lexington, Kentucky.
  • Council of State Governments. (2010b). Connecticut overview. Council of State Governments Justice Center. Lexington, Kentucky..
  • Council of State Governments. (2010c). Texas justice reinvestment. Council of State Governments Justice Center. Lexington, Kentucky.
  • Cullen, F. T., Jonson, C. L., & Nagin, D. S. (2011). Prisons do not reduce recidivism: The high cost of ignoring science. The Prison Journal 1, 48S-65S.
  • Friedmann, P. D., Taxman, F. S., & Henderson, C. (2007). Evidence-based treatment practices for drug-involved adults in the criminal justice system. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 32(3), 267-277.
  • Henggeler, S. W., & Schoenwald, S. K. (1994). Boot camps for juvenile offenders: Just say no. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 3(3), 243-248.
  • Latessa, E., & Allen, H. E. (1982). Halfway houses and parole: A national assessment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 10(2), 153-163.
  • Lipsey, M. W., & Cullen, F. T. (2007). The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: A review of systematic reviews. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 3, 297-320.
  • Ohio Department of Youth Services. (2010). RECLAIM Ohio. Ohio Department of Youth Services. Colombus, Ohio..
  • Petersilia, J., & Turner, S. (1990). Comparing intensive and regular supervision for high-risk probationers: Early results from an experiment in California. Crime & Delinquency, 36(1), 87-111.
  • Renzema, M., & Mayo-Wilson, E. (2005). Can electronic monitoring reduce crime for moderate to high-risk offenders? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1(2), 215-237.
  • Taxman, F. S., & Pattavina, A. (2013). Simulation strategies to reduce recidivism: Risk need responsivity (RNR) modeling in the criminal justice system. New York: Springer.
  • Taxman, F. S., Perdoni, M., & Harrison, L. (2007). Drug treatment services for adult offenders: The state of the state. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 32(3), 239-254.
  • Wilson, D. B., MacKenzie, D. L., & Mitchell, F. N. (2005). Effects of correctional boot camps on offending. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 1(6). Oslo, Norway.
  • Alper, M. E., & Ruhland, E. L. (2016). Probation revocation and its causes: Profiles of state and local jurisdictions. Minneapolis, MN: Robina Institute of Criminal Law & Criminal Justice.
  • Bird, M., & Grattet, R. (2016). Realignment and recidivism. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 664(1), 176-195.
  • Bonta, J., & Motiuk, L. L. (1987). The diversion of incarcerated offenders to correctional halfway houses. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 24(4), 302-323.
  • Bonta, J., & Motiuk, L. L. (1990). Classification to halfway houses: A quasi-experimental evaluation. Criminology, 28(3), 497-506.
  • Bonta, J., Wallace-Capretta, S., & Rooney, J. (2000). Can electronic monitoring make a difference? An evaluation of three Canadian programs. Crime & Delinquency, 46(1), 61-75.
  • Bottcher, J., & Ezell, M. E. (2005). Examining the effectiveness of boot camps: A randomized experiment with a long-term follow up. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 42(3), 309-332.
  • Byrne, J. M. (1990). The future of intensive probation supervision and the new intermediate sanctions. Crime & Delinquency, 36(1), 6-41.
  • Corbett, R. (2016). The Burdens of Leniency: The Changing Face of Probation. Minnesota Law Review, 99, 697-1733.
  • Council of State Governments Justice Center. (2010) Work in the states: Kansas. Council of State Governments Justice Center. Lexington, Kentucky.
  • Council of State Governments Justice Center. (2016). States receiving technical assistance from the CSG Justice Center. Council of State Governments Justice Center. Lexington, Kentucky..
  • United States Department of Justice. (2016). Justice reinvestment initiative. Office of Justice Programs: Bureau of Justice Assistance..
  • Fabelo, T. (2010). Texas justice reinvestment: Be more like Texas? Justice Research and Policy, 12(1), 113-131.
  • Finckenauer, J., Gavin, P. W., Hovland, A., & Storvoll, E. (2012). Scared straight: The panacea phenomenon revisited. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
  • Finn, M. A., & Muirhead-Steves, S. (2002). The effectiveness of electronic monitoring with violent male parolees. Justice Quarterly, 19(2), 293-312.
  • Fox, C., Albertson, K., & Warburton, F. (2011). Justice reinvestment: Can it deliver more for less? The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 50(2), 119-136.
  • Franke, D., Bierie, D., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2009). Legitimacy in Corrections. Criminology & Public Policy, 9(1), 89-117.
  • Freeman, B., & Frierson, R. L. (2009). Court-mandated, long acting psychotropic medication as a condition of supervised release. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 37(2), 268-270.
  • Gainey, R. R., Payne, B. K., & O’Toole, M. (2000). The relationships between time in jail, time on electronic monitoring, and recidivism: An event history analysis of a jail-based program. Justice Quarterly, 17(4), 733-752.
  • Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., Cullen, F. T., & Andrews, D. A. (2000). The effects of community sanctions and incarceration on recidivism. Forum on Corrections Research, 12(2), 10-13. Correctional Service of Canada.
  • Greene, J., & Mauer, M. (2010). Downscaling prisons: Lessons from four states. Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project.
  • Hartman, D. J., Friday, P. C., & Minor, K. I. (1994). Residential probation: A seven-year follow-up study of halfway house discharges. Journal of Criminal Justice, 22(6), 503-515.
  • Bonta, J., & Motiuk, L. L. (1985). Utilization of an interview-based classification instrument: A study of correctional halfway houses. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 12(3), 333-352.
  • Human Rights Watch. (2014). Profiting from probation. “Offender-funded” probation industry. New York: Human Rights Watch. Available at https://www.hrw.org/report/2014/02/05/profiting-probation/americas-offender-funded-probation-industry.James, J., & Agha, S. (2013). Justice reinvestment in action: the Delaware model. New York: Vera Institute of Justice.
  • LaVigne, N., Bieler, S., Cramer, L., Ho, H., Kotonias, C., Mayer, D., . . . Samuels, J. (2014). Justice reinvestment initiative state assessment report. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
  • Lowenkamp, C., Latessa, E. J., & Holsinger, A. M. (2006). The risk principle in action: What have we learned from 13,676 offenders and 97 correctional programs. Crime & Delinquency, 52(1), 77-93.
  • MacKenzie, D. L. (2006). What Works in Corrections: Reducing the Criminal Activities of Offenders and Delinquents? New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • MacKenzie, D. L., Wilson, D. B., Armstrong, G. S., & Gover, A. R. (2001). The impact of boot camps and traditional institutions on juvenile residents: Perceptions, adjustment, and change. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38(3), 279-313.
  • MacKenzie, D. L., Wilson, D. B., & Kider, S. B. (2001). Effects of correctional boot camps on offending. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578(1), 126-143.
  • Marciniak, L. M. (2000). Addition of day reporting to intensive supervision probation: A comparison of recidivism rates. Federal Probation, 64, 34.
  • Mears, D. P., & Bales, W. D. (2009). Supermax incarceration and recidivism. Criminology, 47(4), 1131-1166.
  • Mitchell, O. J., Wilson, D. B., Eggers, A., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2012). Assessing the effectiveness of drug courts on recidivism: A meta-analytic review of traditional and non-traditional drug courts. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 60-71.
  • Morris, N., & Tonry, M. (1991). Between prison and probation: Intermediate punishments in a rational sentencing system. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Nagin, D. S., Cullen, F. T., & Jonson, C. L. (2009). Imprisonment and Reoffending. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research (Vol. 38). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Padgett, K. G., Bales, W. D., & Blomberg, T. G. (2006). Under surveillance: An empirical test of the effectiveness and consequences of electronic monitoring. Criminology & Public Policy, 5(1), 61-91.
  • Petersilia, J., & Deschenes, E. (1994). Perceptions of punishment: Inmates and staff rank the severity of prison versus intermediate sanctions. The Prison Journal, 74(3), 306-328.
  • Petersilia, J., & Turner, S. (1991). An evaluation of intensive probation in California. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), 82(3), 610-658.
  • Petersilia, J., & Turner, S. (1993). Evaluating intensive supervision probation/parole: Results of a nationwide experiment. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
  • Petersilia, J., & Turner, S. (1993). Intensive probation and parole. Crime and Justice, 17, 281-335.
  • Schwartz, M. (2010). Building communities, not prisons: Justice reinvestment and indigenous over-representation. AILR, 14(1).
  • Sechrest, D. K. (1989). Prison boot camps do not measure up. Federal Probation, 53, 15.
  • Sundt, J., Salisbury, E. J., & Harmon, M. G. (2016). The effect of California’s realignment act on public safety. Criminology and Public Policy, 15(2), 1-27.
  • Sung, L., & Lieb, R. (1993). Recidivism: The effect of incarceration and length of time served. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
  • Taxman, F. S., Pattavina, A., & Caudy, M. (2014). Justice reinvestment in the United States: An empirical assessment of the potential impact of increased correctional programming on recidivism. Victims & Offenders, 9(1), 50-75.
  • Taxman, F. S. (2012). Probation, intermediate sanctions, and community-based corrections. In J. Petersilia & K. Reitz (Eds.), Oxford handbook on sentencing and corrections (pp. 363-388). New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Di Tella, R., & Schargrodsky, E. (2013). Criminal recidivism after prison and electronic monitoring. Journal of Political Economy, 121(1), 28-73.
  • Tucker, S., & Cadora, E. (2003). From prisons to parks in Oregon. Open Society Institute Occasional Papers, 3(3), 6.
  • Turner, S., Fain, T., & Hunt, S. (2015). Public safety realignment in twelve California counties. Santa Monica, California: Rand Corporation.
  • Turner, S., Petersilia, J., & Deschenes, E. P. (1992). Evaluating intensive supervision probation/parole (ISP) for drug offenders. Crime & Delinquency, 38(4), 539-556.
  • Watts, A. L. (2016). Probation in-depth: The length of probation sentences. Minneapolis, MN: Robina Institute of Criminal Law & Criminal Justice.
  • Wong, K., Meadows, L., Warburton, F., Webb, S., Young, H., & Barraclough, N. (2013). The development and year one implementation of the local justice reinvestment pilot. Project report. Ministry of Justice.

Posted

in

,

by

Comments

2 responses to “Alternatives to Incarceration”

  1. international

    The push to expand the probation-plus options was aimed at enhancing the punitiveness of probation as well as giving new options to avoid incarceration. In that era, the concept of shock incarceration/boot camps, day reporting programs, probation with numerous required mandates, treatment with sanctions, and other variations of identifying needs that could be diverted to treatment programs were tested with varying success.

  2. international

    The push to expand the probation-plus options was aimed at enhancing the punitiveness of probation as well as giving new options to avoid incarceration. In that era, the concept of shock incarceration/boot camps, day reporting programs, probation with numerous required mandates, treatment with sanctions, and other variations of identifying needs that could be diverted to treatment programs were tested with varying success.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *