Paula Smith, M.A.

Claire Goggin, M.A.

Paul Gendreau, Ph.D.
Department of Psychology
and
Centre for Criminal Justice Studies
University of e! "runs!ic#, Saint John
The Effects of Prison Sentences
and Intermediate Sanctions on
Recidivism: General Effects
and Individual Differences
2002-01
$he vie!s e%pressed are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Portfolio of the
Solicitor General of Canada. $his document is availa&le in 'rench. Ce rapport est disponi&le en
fran(ais sous le titre) Effets de lincarcration et des sanctions intermdiaires sur la rcidive :
effets gnraux et diffrences individuelles
Also availa&le on Solicitor General Canada*s +nternet Site http),,!!!.sgc.gc.ca
Pu&lic -or#s and Government Services Canada, .//.
Cat o.) JS0.12/3,.//.
+S") /144.1440561.
Acno!led"ments
-e greatly appreciate the on1going support of Jim "onta in our research endeavours in this area.
$he pro7ect !as funded &y Contract o. 23201/21CG2,685 from Corrections 9esearch and
Development, Solicitor General of Canada. 9e:uests for further information should &e directed
to Paul Gendreau; <mail) or 'a%) 6/4140816820.
i
Ta#le of $ontents
E%ecutive Summar&.......................................................................................................................ii
Introduction....................................................................................................................................2
'ethod............................................................................................................................................6
Sample of Studies.........................................................................................................................6
Coding of Studies.........................................................................................................................6
<ffect Si=e Calculation.................................................................................................................5
<ffect Si=e Magnitude..................................................................................................................5
Results.............................................................................................................................................>
More vs. ?ess $ime in Prison.......................................................................................................>
+ncarceration vs. Community1"ased..........................................................................................22
Com&ining +ncarceration Sanctions............................................................................................22
+ntermediate Sanctions...............................................................................................................22
Age.............................................................................................................................................2.
Gender........................................................................................................................................23
9ace............................................................................................................................................20
@uality of Design.......................................................................................................................26
9is# ?evel...................................................................................................................................24
on1+ndependence of <ffect Si=es.............................................................................................24
Discussion.....................................................................................................................................28
References......................................................................................................................................3
A((endi% A...................................................................................................................................34
ii
E%ecutive Summar&
-hile !e have previously reported on the effects of sanctions on recidivism Asee
Gendreau, Goggin, B Cullen, 2>>>; Gendreau, Goggin, B 'ulton, .///; Gendreau, Goggin,
Cullen, B Andre!s, .///C, the purpose of this investigation !as to update the results from these
previous reports and to e%amine the effects of sanctions for 7uveniles, females, and minority
groups. Dne hundred and seventeen studies dating from 2>68 involving 00.,052 offenders
produced 6/0 correlations &et!een recidivism and AaC length of time incarcerated, A&C serving an
institutional sentence vs. receiving a community1&ased sanction, or AcC receiving an intermediate
sanction. $he data !as analysed using :uantitative methods Ai.e., meta1analysisC to determine
!hether prison and community sanctions reduced recidivism.
$he results !ere as follo!s) type of sanction did not produce decreases in recidivism
under any of the three conditions. Secondly, there !ere no differential effects of type of sanction
on 7uveniles, females, or minority groups. $hirdly, there !ere tentative indications that
increasing lengths of incarceration !ere associated !ith slightly greater increases in recidivism.
$he essential conclusions from this study are consistent !ith those of the a&ove1noted
meta1analyses.
2. Prisons and intermediate sanctions should not &e used !ith the e%pectation of
reducing criminal &ehaviour.
.. Dn the &asis of the present results, e%cessive use of incarceration may have su&stantial
cost implications.
3. +n order to determine !ho is &eing adversely affected &y time in prison, it is
incum&ent upon prison officials to implement repeated, comprehensive assessments of offenders*
attitudes, values, and &ehaviours throughout the period of incarceration and correlate these
changes !ith recidivism upon release into the community.
2
Introduction
Since the mid12>5/s, the use of sanctions or punishments has &een promoted as an
effective means of suppressing criminal &ehaviour A-il#s B Martinson, 2>54C. $he t!o most
common forms of punishment advocated &y deterrence proponents have &een incarceration and
intermediate sanctions Ae.g., intensive surveillance, electronic monitoringC. +nterestingly, no
coherent empirical rationale has &een posited to support the use of these strategies. +n our
surveys of these literatures AGendreau, 2>>4C !e have rarely encountered citations of the relevant
e%perimental or clinical literatures Ae.g., Matson B Di?oren=o, 2>80C. 9ather, !hat passes as
intellectual rigour in the sanctions field is a fervid appeal to common sense
2
or vaguely
articulated notions that someho! 7ust the Ee%perienceF of a sanction, the imposition of so1called
direct and indirect costs or Eturning up the heatF, !ill magically change antisocial &ehavioural
ha&its nurtured over a lifetime, and do so in relatively short order
.
Acf. Andaneas, 2>48; <r!in,
2>84; agin, 2>>8; Song B ?ie&, 2>>3C.
-hat evidence is there then in support of incarceration and intermediate sanctions as
useful punishers of criminal &ehaviourG Presuma&ly, research studies in this domain should have
&een consistently reporting an inverse relationship &et!een the severity of sanction and the
conse:uent recidivism rate Ai.e., a punishment suppression effectC. A series of :uantitative
literature syntheses have recently summari=ed the results from such studies Acf. Cullen B
2
Dne perspective on common sense that has stood the test of time and is congruent !ith current
social psychological research is that espoused &y 'rancis "acon. $he cru% of his vie! is that
people adopt &eliefs !hich satisfy their pre7udice or the fashiona&le ideologies of the time.
+nformation that is contradictory is ignored or facile distinctions are made to preserve one*s
e%isting &elief systems Asee Gendreau, Goggin, Cullen, B Paparo==i, in pressC. +ndeed, "acon*s
vie! is that common sense &eliefs are founded in superstition.
.
$here are theoretical perspectives from the criminological and psychological Ae.g., operant
learning, punishment, social psychologyC fields that counter a punishment hypothesis. 'or a
comprehensive revie!, consult Gendreau et al., A2>>>C.
.
Gendreau, .///C. $he results from these meta1analyses AGendreau et al., 2>>>; Gendreau,
Goggin, Cullen, B Andre!s, .//2C clearly did not favour a punishment hypothesis. -hether the
studies involved comparisons of AaC incarcerates serving more vs. less time; A&C incarcerates vs.
those receiving a community sanction; or AcC offenders receiving more severe vs. less severe
intermediate sanctions, the results indicated more punishment !as associated !ith either slight
increases in recidivism A H ./. to ./3C or no effect A H .//C. or did these results support the
e%istence of an optimal sentence length that !ould reduce recidivism, as has &een posited &y
some economists ADrsagh B Chen, 2>88C or that prisons !ere schools of crime Asee Gendreau et
al., 2>>> for a detailed revie!C. $he only moderator effect found in the entire Gendreau data set
!as in the case of intermediate sanctions, !here +ntensive Supervision Programs A+SPsC that also
included treatment services produced small reductions in recidivism Aappro%imately 2/I;
Gendreau, Goggin, B 'ulton, .///C.
3
Some important individual difference moderators, ho!ever, !ere not assessed in these
meta1analyses; specifically, the effects of these three types of sanctions on females, 7uveniles,
and minority groups. -ith regard to females, it strains credulity to 7ustify !hy they should &e
singled out &ut apparently !hen shoc# pro&ation !as first implemented there !as a sense in
some :uarters that it might prove &eneficial to females in particular Acf., Jito, Kolmes, B -ilson,
2>86C.
0
-ith respect to 7uveniles, some politicians and neo1conservative pundits have issued
repeated calls to Eget toughF !ith this population, in the &elief that 7uveniles !ill &e made
more accounta&le in some fashion or other. $his has led, for e%ample, to the adoption of more
3
+t !as impossi&le to determine the therapeutic integrity of the treatments included in these
programs. +n our estimation, most !ere sadly lac#ing in this regard.
0
$he effects of individual differences in offenders Ae.g., +@, psychopathyC in response to
punishment has &een studied &ut usually in artificial la&oratory settings AGendreau B Su&os#i,
2>52a, &C. +t is ho! punishers 1 those !hose effectiveness has &een empirically demonstrated 1
are administered that is of utmost importance.
3
punitive 7uvenile legislation in Canada Athe Loung Dffenders Act, ?eschied B Gendreau, 2>84C.
-hether these notions, ho!ever, !ere lin#ed to e%pectations of reduced offending in the minds
of the advocates of this legislation is difficult to ascertain. 'inally, !e have not &een a!are of
any calls for the enhanced effects of punishments on minority groups Ano dou&t, a search of the
+nternet !ould uncover some racist vie!sC e%cept to note that criminal 7ustice policies in the U.S.
have led to increased incarceration rates for some minority groups AMauer, 2>>>C. +t is li#ely
that proponents of such policies !ere primarily interested in achieving incapacitation effects.
$hus, the purpose of this meta1analysis !as to update the results that !e have previously
reported regarding the three general classes of sanctions and to e%amine these results as they
pertain to the aforementioned offender groups. -e also e%amined the differential effects of
:uality of research design, length of time incarcerated, and offender ris# level on effect si=e.
6
As
to the latter, the early sanctions literature A-aldron B Angelino, 2>55C as !ell as some
economists Acf., Gendreau et al., 2>>>C have suggested that lo! ris# offenders should &enefit
from sanctions.
4
'inally, there is some de&ate among meta1analysts as to the appropriate num&er of effect
si=es to include per primary study. Dur approach has &een to include all availa&le treatment and
control group comparisons Ae.g., Andre!s, Minger, Koge, "onta, Gendreau, B Cullen, 2>>/; see
also 9osenthal, 2>>2C as, to do other!ise, is to e%clude data that may shed light on some
important theoretical issues and to increase sample si=e. Secondly, our research group places
much more emphasis on a descriptive rather then inferential approach to research integration
6
$he reporting of essential study descriptors in this literature is, !ith fe! e%ceptions, so
inade:uate that only a handful of varia&les are availa&le for coding, and even then difficulties
arise Ae.g., ris# level; see Gendreau et al., 2>>>C.
4
$here are contrary vie!s in the literature. ?eschied and Gendreau A2>>0C contend that lo! ris#
offenders should &e adversely affected &y incarceration !hile Mam&le and Porporino A2>88C
imply the opposite.
0
AGendreau, Goggin, B Smith, .///; see also Kunter B Schmidt, 2>>/C. Dther meta1analysts
suggest a more cautious approach and have hypothesi=ed the possi&ility that non1independent
effect si=es may unduly effect the results A?ipsey B -ilson, .//2C. Accordingly, !e inspected
the results for this potential confound.
6
'ethod
Sample of Studies
A literature search for studies !hich e%amined the effects of time in prison or
intermediate sanctions on recidivism and !ere availa&le since completion of the last report
AGendreau, Goggin, B 'ulton, .///C !as conducted using the ancestry approach and li&rary
a&stracting services. $he follo!ing !ere pre1re:uisites for study inclusion)
2. Dffender data !as collected prior to recording recidivism results.
.. Dffenders !ere follo!ed for a minimum of si% months after completing the prison
sentence or sanction.
3. Sufficient information to calculate an effect si=e Aphi coefficient AC or correlationC
&et!een the EtreatmentF condition Ae.g., prison vs. no prisonC and recidivism !as reported.
0. <ligi&ility criteria !ere e%tended to include DU+ studies or treatment studies Ae.g.,
cognitive &ehaviour therapy, education, su&stance a&use, etc.C that also employed a sanction, &ut
not sanction studies !ith pre1post designs or studies reporting aggregate level data, !hich can
!ildly inflate results AGendreau, Goggin, B Smith, .//2C.
Coding of Studies
Appendi% A contains the coding guide used in this study. A comment on the
classification of sanction types and definitions of :uality of research and ris# level may &e in
order.
Surveys indicate that &oth the pu&lic and policy ma#ers, as !ell as offenders, consider
prison to &e the most severe or effective punisher of criminal &ehaviour ADeJong, 2>>5; Doo&,
Sprott, Marinos, B Jarma, 2>>8; van Joorhis, "ro!ning, Simon, B Gordon, 2>>5; -ood B
Grasmic#, 2>>>C. Df note, there is some discussion in the literature as to !hether very short
terms of incarceration Ai.e., several months durationC may, in fact, &e construed &y offenders as
4
less of a sanction than very onerous pro&ation conditions A-ood B Grasmic#, 2>>>C, &ut this
data is tentative as it is &ased on small samples and rests solely on offenders* perceptions Aa&sent
any recent comparative e%perience !ith the t!o sanctionsC.
$hus, for the more vs. less prison category, the greater punishment !as the longer period
of time incarcerated. +n regard to the incarceration vs. community comparisons, the less severe
sanction consisted of various pro&ation conditions such as regular pro&ation, !hich tended to
predominate.
+n the intermediate sanctions category, pro&ationers !ho received a sanction such as
electronic monitoring, fines, restitution, intensive surveillance, scared straight, or drug testing
!ere included in the sanctions group and their post1program outcome !as compared !ith those
assigned to a lesser sanction such as regular pro&ation, !hich typically consisted of infre:uent
contacts !ith correctional staff. Secondly, com&inations of t!o or more intermediate sanctions
!ere coded as more intensive and !ere compared !ith the effects of receiving only one type of
sanction. $hirdly, offenders !ho e%perienced more intensive surveillance !ere compared !ith
those !ho received less intensive surveillance Ai.e., 8 hours vs. . hours of !ee#ly surveillanceC.
$he comparison group for studies that used arrest as the sanction !as a !arrant,citation or no
arrest group. "oot camp studies !ere included in the intermediate sanctions group as they are
often preceded &y a pro&ation condition, and their comparison group !as comprised of +SPs of
any description or regular pro&ation.
Studies designated as higher :uality !ere those !ith random assignment A!ith no
&rea#do!ns in the procedure, i.e., N ./I attritionC or comparison group designs !here the t!o
groups !ere similar on at least five valid ris# predictor domains Ae.g., age, criminal history,
antisocial values; see Gendreau, ?ittle, B Goggin, 2>>4 for a more complete list of applica&le
domainsC.
5
A high ris# sample !as so designated on the &asis of either AaC the study author*s report,
A&C ris# measure norms, or AcC the comparison group*s recidivism rate Ai.e., high ris# !as defined
as O24I recidivism at 2 year follo!1up, O3/I at . or more years of follo!1upC.
'inally, if anything, coders erred in favour of the sanction. -here possi&le, technical
violations !ere not scored if other outcome criteria !ere availa&le Ai.e., +SPs sometimes produce
a&normally high rates of technical violations given the pro&ation conditionsC. +n addition, some
intermediate sanctions Ae.g., &oot campsC reported comparison group data on completers and
dropouts. -e included the effect si=es from completer groups only.
Effect Size Calculation
Details of our approach to generating correctional policies utili=ing meta1analysis are
availa&le in Gendreau et al. A.///C. "riefly, for this investigation, phi coefficients AC !ere
produced for all treatment 1 control comparisons in each study that reported a numerical
relationship !ith recidivism. +n the event of a non1significant predictor1criterion relationship,
!here a p value greater than ./6 !as the only reported statistic, a of .// !as assigned.
e%t, the o&tained correlations !ere transformed into a !eighted value Az
+
C that ta#es
into account the sample si=e of each effect si=e and the num&er of effect si=es per type of
sanction AKedges B Dl#in, 2>86C. Dutcome !as recorded such that a positive or z
+
!as
indicative of a less favoura&le result Ai.e., a greater sanction !ith higher recidivism ratesC.
Effect Size Magnitude
Assessment of the magnitude of the effect of various sanctions on recidivism !as
conducted &y e%amining the mean values of and z
+
, as !ell as their respective >6I confidence
intervals ACIC. $he CI is a range of values a&out the mean effect si=e that, a specified percentage
of the time Ai.e., >6IC, includes the respective population parameter. $he utility of the CI lies in
its interpreta&ility) if the interval does not contain / it can &e concluded that the mean effect si=e
8
is significantly different from / Ai.e., &etter than chance aloneC, although one is advised that the
decision to interpret it as such is ar&itrary AGendreau et al., .///C. Similarly, if there is no
overlap &et!een the >6I CIs of the mean effect si=es of t!o conditions Ai.e., sanction vs.
comparison groupC, then the mean effect si=es of the t!o !ould &e assessed as &eing statistically
different from one another at the ./6 level.
$he common language effect si=e statistic AMcGra! B -ong, 2>>.C !as also used to
generate pro&a&listic statements of the relative magnitude of varying lengths of incarceration on
recidivism. Specifically, the CL statistic converts an effect si=e into the pro&a&ility that a
treatment criterion point estimate sampled at random from the distri&ution of one treatment
Amore incarcerationC !ill &e greater than that sampled from another Aless incarcerationC.
>
Results
$a&le 2 summari=es the results for each of the ma7or sanctions on recidivism. Since the
last reports Asee Gendreau, Goggin, Cullen, B Andre!s, .///C, 3> more effect si=es representing
an additional 6.,8/6 offenders !ere recovered. $heir distri&ution &y type of sanction is as
follo!s) more vs. less incarceration Ak H 22, n H 38,>25C, incarceration vs. community Ak H 2,
n H 2,//.C, and intermediate sanctions Ak H .5, n H 2.,884C.
$a&le 2.
Mean Effect Size and Mean eig!ted Effect Size "# $#pe of Sanction
Sanction AkC % M CIM z
+
CIz+
2. +ncarceration) More vs. ?ess
a
A.33C 2/5,246 ./3 ./. to ./6 ./3 ./. to ./0
.. +ncarceration vs. Community
&
A2/0C .48,8/4 ./5 ./6 to ./> .// .// to .//
3. +ntermediate Sanctions
c
A245C 44,6// 1./2 1./3 to ./2 1./2 1./. to .//
0. $otal A6/0C 00.,052 ./3 ./2 to ./0 .// .// to .//
ote) k H num&er of effect si=es per type of sanction; % H total sample si=e per type of sanction;
M H mean phi; CIM H confidence interval a&out mean phi; z
+
H !eighted estimation of phi per
type of sanction; CIz+ H confidence interval a&out z
+
.
a
More vs. ?ess 1 mean prison time in months) More H 32 mths, ?ess H 23 mths Ak H ./.C.
&
+ncarceration vs. Community 1 mean prison time in months) 2/ mths Ak H 2>C.
c
+ntermediate sanctions H type of sanctions in this category are intensive supervision, arrest,
fines, restitution, &oot camps, scared straight, drug testing, and electronic monitoring.
More vs. Less Time in Prison
A total of .4 studies generated .33 effect si=es in this category, !ith a total sample si=e of
2/5,246. $he mean length of time incarcerated for the more and less categories Ak H ./.C !as 32
and 23 months, respectively. $he ma7ority of the studies in the sample !ere pu&lished A>6IC,
2/
either in 7ournals, te%ts, or government reports. More than >/I of the effect si=es came from
American studies, the ma7ority of !hich !ere conducted during the 2>5/s A8.IC.
$he results indicated no evidence of a punishment effect. 9egardless of the choice of
effect si=e Ai.e., or z
+
C, the longer vs. shorter time period in prison comparison Ak H .33C !as
associated !ith a small increase in recidivism A H ./3C. ote, neither of the CIs included /.
Sufficient information !as availa&le from ./. more vs. less effect si=es to determine if
variations in time served Athe difference score in monthsC !ere related to recidivism. $he results
are presented in $a&le .. 'or e%ample, group 0 represents the most severe sanction. $here !ere
05 effect si=es !here the difference in time served &et!een the more vs. less group !as at least
.0 months. $he mean effect si=es !ere ./5 and ./4 and the CIs did not include /. 'rom this
$a&le it is clear that increases in recidivism vary &y the severity of the sanction as defined &y the
difference in time served. 'or the least severe sanction, group 2, small reductions in recidivism
!ere found, although the CIs did include /. +t is also note!orthy that these four groups !ere
mar#edly similar in regard to the percentage of lo! and high ris# offender effect si=es in each
group.
$a&le ..
Mean Effect Size and Mean eig!ted Effect Size "# Lengt! of $ime Incarcerated
?ength of $ime +ncarcerated
a
AkC % M CIM z
+
CIz+
2. less than 4 months A35C 8,022 1./3 1./5 to .23 1./2 1./3 to ./2
.. 5 to 2. months A40C 64,855 ./. .// to ./0 1./. 1./3 to 1./2
3. 23 to .0 months A60C 20,465 ./6 ./. to ./> ./3 ./2 to ./6
0. O .0 months A05C 24,3.5 ./5 ./0 to .2/ ./4 ./0 to ./8
ote) $he percentage of lo! ris# offender effect si=es in each of the four groups !as 38I, 30I,
36I, and 30I, respectively.
a
?ength of time incarcerated represents the difference in time incarcerated for the offenders in
the more vs. less groups.
22
Application of the common language effect si=e statistic ACLC to these results provided an
estimate of the magnitude of the effect. -e focus on the severest sanction Agroup 0C. $hat is, the
CL indicates that 56I of the time effect si=es in group 0 generated increased estimates of
recidivism as compared !ith those for group 2. $he corresponding CL values for group 0 vs. .
and group 0 vs. 3 are 40I and 66I, respectively.
Incarceration vs. Community-Based
A total of 32 studies met the criteria for inclusion in the incarceration vs. community
domain, reporting 2/0 effect si=es !ith recidivism A$a&le 2C.
Most of the studies !ere pu&lished A>4IC, the ma7ority since 2>8/ A>4IC, and most of
the effect si=es came from American studies A48IC. 'orty1three percent of comparison groups
!ere regular pro&ation and 36I involved a com&ination of pro&ation conditions. +ncarceration
!as associated !ith a slight increase in recidivism A H ./5, CI H ./6 to ./>C, although !hen
!eighted &y sample si=e Az
+
C, the effect !as /.
Comining Incarceration Sanctions
Summing the data for the a&ove incarceration categories Amore vs. less and incarceration
vs. communityC sho!ed that incarceration !as associated !ith a slight increase in recidivism
A H ./0, CI H ./3 to ./4C. -hen effect si=es !ere !eighted, ho!ever, there !as no effect
Az
+
H //, CI H .// to .//C.
Intermediate Sanctions
$his group included 50 studies that yielded 245 effect si=es from 44,6// offenders
A$a&le 2C. $he ma7ority of the studies in this sample !ere pu&lished A58IC, most in the 2>8/s
A>2IC from U.S. sources A8/IC. 'orty1three percent of the control groups employed regular
2.
pro&ation, .4I involved no sanction, and ..I consisted of a mi%ture of various pro&ation
conditions.
+ntermediate sanctions !ere associated !ith a 2I decrease in recidivism and the
respective CIs included /.
!ge
$a&le 3 depicts a large degree of varia&ility in results across the three sanction categories
for adults and 7uveniles. $he effect on recidivism !as dependent on sanction type and choice of
outcome indice A or z
P
C.
$a&le 3.
Mean Effect Size and Mean eig!ted Effect Size "# $#pe of Sanction "# &ge
Sanction AkC % M CIM z
+
CIz+
2. +ncarceration) More vs. ?ess
Adults A..8C 48,3/3 ./3 ./. to ./6 ./3 ./. to ./0
Juveniles A6C 38,84. .// 1./8 to ./8 1./0 1./3 to 1./6
.. +ncarceration vs. Community
Adults A52C 54,.85 ./5 ./6 to .2/ ./3 ./. to ./0
Juveniles A.0C 0,228 ./> ./3 to .26 ./8 ./6 to .22
3. +ntermediate Sanctions
Adults A2/0C 00,85/ 1./. 1./6 to .// 1./2 1./. to .//
Juveniles A6>C 22,202 .// 1./0 to ./0 1./2 1./3 to ./2
0. $otal
Adults A0/3C 28>,04/ ./3 ./. to ./0 ./. ./. to ./.
Juveniles A88C 60,2.2 ./. 1./2 to ./6 1./. 1./3 to 1./2
23
"ender
+nspection of $a&le 0 reveals no differential effect of sanctions &y gender. -ith so fe!
effect si=es An H 2/C reported for females, the CIs are relatively !ide. Across the three types of
sanction categories, there is a tendency for females to &e more adversely affected A H ./8;
z
P
H ./4C, although the CIs for males and females do overlap.
$a&le 0.
Mean Effect Size and Mean eig!ted Effect Size "# $#pe of Sanction "# 'ender
Sanction AkC % M CIM z
+
CIz+
2. +ncarceration) More vs. ?ess
Males A.22C >>,0/3 ./3 ./2 to ./0 .// 1./2 to ./2
'emales A5C 643 .26 1./5 to .35 .2/ ./. to .28
.. +ncarceration vs. Community
Males A46C .8,4.. ./4 ./3 to .2/ ./8 ./5 to ./>
'emales A2C 05 ./6 ,A ./6 ,A
3. +ntermediate Sanctions
Males A226C 08,6.5 .// 1./3 to ./. .// 1./2 to ./2
'emales A.C 236 1.26 1.43 to .33 1.23 1.3/ to ./0
0. $otal
Males A3>2C 254,66. ./. ./2 to ./0 ./2 .// to ./.
'emales A2/C 506 ./8 1./> to ..0 ./4 1./2 to .23
20
#ace
$he data contained in $a&le 6 is interesting insofar as there is little #no!n a&out the
response of various racial groups to sanctions. $he ma7ority of effect si=es came from mi%ed
race samples. +n total there !ere only 6 minority group effect si=es and the respective CIs of
&oth and z
P
included /.
$a&le 6.
Mean Effect Size and Mean eig!ted Effect Size "# $#pe of Sanction "# (ace
Sanction AkC % M CIM z
+
CIz+
2. +ncarceration) More vs. ?ess
-hite A0C 3>2 .20 1.2. to .0/ ./> 1./2 to .2>
.. +ncarceration vs. Community
-hite A>C .,5./ .22 ./3 to .2> .2/ ./4 to .20
Minority A3C 86. 1./. 1./> to ./0 1./. 1./> to ./6
3. +ntermediate Sanctions
-hite A.>C 0,/46 ./2 1./4 to ./6 1./3 1./4 to .//
Minority A.C 06/ 1./5 1.04 to .33 1.20 1..3 to 1./6
0. $otal
-hite A0.C 5,254 ./3 1./2 to./8 ./3 ./2 to ./6
Minority A6C 2,3/. 1./0 1./> to ./2 ./0 1./> to ./2
26
$uality of %esign
$he results in $a&le 4 &ear little relationship to the :uality of research design, although in
4 of 8 comparisons involving and z
P
there !as a tendency for effect si=es in the higher :uality
design condition to &e associated !ith marginally more recidivism. +n three of these
comparisons, the CIs associated !ith the stronger design category did not overlap !ith that of the
!ea#er design group.
$a&le 4.
Mean Effect Size and Mean eig!ted Effect Size "# $#pe of Sanction "# )ualit# of *esign
Sanction AkC % M CIM z
+
CIz+
2. +ncarceration) More vs. ?ess
Strong A2..C 35, 035 ./0 ./. to ./4 ./3 ./. to ./0
-ea# A222C 4>,5.8 ./3 ./2 to ./6 1./2 1./. to .//
.. +ncarceration vs. Community
Strong A3>C .8,064 .22 ./2 to .20 ./8 ./5 to ./>
-ea# A46C .0/,36/ ./0 ./2 to ./5 1./2 1./2 to 1./2
3. +ntermediate Sanctions
Strong A8.C 32,>/3 1./. 1./6 to .// 1./2 1./. to .//
-ea# A86C 30,6>5 .// 1./0 to ./3 .// 1./2 to ./2
0. $otal
Strong A.03C >5,5>4 ./3 ./2 to./0 ./3 ./. to ./0
-ea# A.42C 300,456 ./. ./2 to ./0 1./2 1./2 to 1./2
24
#is& Level
$he results presented in $a&le 5 suggest no differential association &et!een ris# level and
type of sanction in its effect on recidivism. All CIs include /.
$a&le 5.
Mean Effect Size and Mean eig!ted Effect Size "# $#pe of Sanction "# (isk Level
Sanction AkC M CIM z
+
CIz+
2. +ncarceration) More vs. ?ess
?o! 9is# A5>C 68,22. ./0 ./2 to ./4 1./2 1./. to .//
Kigh 9is# A23>C 00,026 ./3 ./2 to ./6 ./. ./2 to ./3
.. +ncarceration vs. Community
?o! 9is# A.6C 88,20/ ./5 ./2 to .20 ./2 .// to ./.
Kigh 9is# A5/C 248,2./ ./5 ./6 to .2/ .// .// to .//
3. +ntermediate Sanctions
?o! 9is# A0>C 24,234 .// 1./0 to ./0 1./. 1./0 to .//
Kigh 9is# A22/C 8,48/ 1./2 1./0 to ./2 .// 1./. to ./.
0. $otal
?o! 9is# A263C 24.,388 ./3 ./2 to./6 .// .// to .//
Kigh 9is# A32>C .63,./> ./. ./2 to ./0 .// .// to .//
'on-Independence of Effect Sizes
$he incarceration dataset herein included a num&er of studies that produced multiple
effect si=es. As a case in point, one study reported the effects of varying lengths of incarceration
across > ris# levels, producing 4 possi&le effect si=es for each level of ris#. Kad !e applied more
stringent selection criteria Ai.e., including only comparisons !ith no overlap in time servedC, only
t!o of the possi&le effect si=es !ould have &een eligi&le. +n order to test the possi&le effects of
25
non1independence on the results, a re1analysis of the data using the aforementioned selection
parameters !as performed.
'or the more vs. less incarceration category, the results !ere as follo!s) redundancies
included Ak H ./., n H 4.,0./, H ./3, CI H ./2 to ./0C and redundancies e%cluded Ak H 4>,
n H .2,0/>, H ./., CI H 1./3 to ./6. Under &oth conditions, the mean z
+
!as ./3. A similar
pattern of results applied to the incarceration vs. community1&ased category) redundancies
included Ak H 40, n H 48,660, H ./5, CI H ./0 to .2/C and redundancies e%cluded Ak H .3,
n H ./,364, H ./8, CI H ./5 to .23C. +n each case, the =
P
mean effect si=e !as ./3.
28
Discussion
Some important caveats should &e noted regarding the :uality of the research literature in
this meta1analysis, particularly in the case of the t!o prison sanction groups. $he studies !ere
&ereft of essential information regarding their EpersonalityF A?ipsey B -ilson, .//2C. +mportant
sample and methodological descriptors !ere fre:uently missing. $his is not unusual !hen
dealing !ith prison1&ased studies AGendreau, Goggin, B ?a!, 2>>5C. 'or e%ample, no study
recorded any information a&out the conditions of confinement, an a&solutely critical component.
$he e%act length of time confined !as not precisely defined in many of the more vs. less
incarceration studies and !as unreported in 84I of the incarceration vs. community effect si=es.
Part of the pro&lem Aand this is &eing charita&leC rests in the fact that fe! studies !ere
specifically designed to test a deterrence hypothesis. $hey !ere e%amining parole issues !here,
fortuitously for our purposes, the studies recorded varying lengths of time served A!ith ris#
control comparisonsC or they !ere intermediate sanction studies that had, as their comparison
groups, offenders !ho served time in prison.
2
Some of the studies !ere :uite dated, !hich, in
itself, does not invalidate their contri&utions, &ut does spea# to the unfortunate lac# of
contemporary studies given the u&i:uitous use of prison as a control agent. 'inally, some studies
produced a disproportionate num&er of effect si=es Q particularly in the case of the prison more
vs. less category Q !hich tends to limit generali=a&ility Ae.g., Gendreau et al., 2>>5C.
evertheless, this data&ase, imperfect as it may &e, is the &est there is to date if policy
ma#ers !ish to entertain a serious discussion a&out the utility of prisons and intermediate
sanctions as effective punishers. $he three ma7or categories of sanctions !e investigated !ere
&ased on huge datasets and !ere consistent in producing results unassociated !ith reductions in
recidivism. -e are confident that, no matter ho! many studies are su&se:uently found,
.
sanction
2
$his is an interesting choice as one !ould thin# such studies !ould have as comparison groups
offenders !ho only received a less severe sanction than prison.
.
9ecent meta1analyses on su&1components of this data&ase 1 &oot camps and restitution
2>
studies !ill not produce results indicative of even modest suppression effects or results remotely
appro%imating outcomes reported for certain types of treatment programs A H ..4, CI H ..2 1 .32;
Andre!s, Do!den, B Gendreau, .//.C. As to the second focus of this investigation, there !ere
no differential effects of sanctions reported for 7uveniles, females, or minority groups or for high
vs. lo! ris# offenders. $!o cautions are !arranted; the data&ase for minorities is minuscule and
there is a tentative indication that sanctions may affect females more adversely than males.
Dn the other side of the coin, Eget toughF aficionados might cavil a&out the research
design :uality of the prison studies &ut the reality is that proponents of such sanctions have long
rested their case on far less su&stantive foundations; common sense arguments and narrative
revie!s.
3
Dne cannot imagine, ho!ever, criminal 7ustice systems suddenly em&ar#ing upon a
num&er of randomi=ed designs for the &enefit of meta1analysts. $hus, !e are left !ith a
collection of comparison group studies of varying :uality for policy ma#ers to ruminate over.
-hat does one ma#e of theseG +t is a comple% issue. Several meta1analysts have suggested that
good comparison group designs produce results similar to those of true e%perimental designs
Ac.f., Andre!s et al., 2>>/; Keinsman B Shadish, 2>>4; ?ipsey B -ilson, 2>>3; Shadish B
A?atimer, Do!den, B Muise, .//2; MacRen=ie, -ilson, B Rider, .//2C 1 have reported very
similar results to our o!n using e%panded data&ases. $he a&ove reports found that &oot camps
had negligi&le effects on recidivism !hile restitution produced slight reductions Aa&out 6IC, an
effect !hich !e opine is pro&a&ly due to treatment &eing im&edded in the design of these
programs.
3
arrative revie!s are ne%t to useless in determining precise effects !ith large data&ases
AGendreau et al., .///C. A good e%ample Aand this is not a criticism, the authors !ere un&iased
and doing the &est they could !ith a small data&ase reporting inconsistent resultsC !as Song and
?ie&*s A2>>3C attempt to estimate the effects of prison on recidivism.
./
9agsdale, 2>>4C !hile others find more stringent study designs are associated !ith effects of less
magnitude A-eis&urd, ?um, B Petrosino, .//2C.
0
+n our opinion, effect si=es from studies of &etter design :uality !ithin the prison
sanctions categories !ere informative given that the e%perimental and comparison groups !ere
compara&le on at least 6 important ris# factors Ai.e., criminal historyC and many of the
comparisons !ere &ased on validated ris# measures. $he results from these studies did not
support the deterrence perspective. $!o effect si=es, &y the !ay, came from randomi=ed
designs; they reported 6I and >I increases in recidivism for the incarceration group Athe
intermediate sanctions literature !as of generally higher :ualityC.
"ut even more important than considerations of design issues is the paramount fact that
there is a&solutely no cogent theoretical or empirical rationale for criminal 7ustice sanctions to
suppress criminal &ehaviour in the first place AGendreau, 2>>4C. At &est, most criminal 7ustice
sanctions are threats Ae.g., Edo something unspecified sometime in the future and something may
happenFC. $o those !ho &elieve that criminal 7ustice sanctions in general or threats in particular
are effective punishers or negative reinforcers, !e advise they consult the relevant &ehaviour
modification literature or any e%perimental learning te%t for supportive evidence Ae.g., Masters,
"urish, Kollon, B 9imm, 2>85C. $here is none.
$he results forthcoming from the more vs. less prison category deserves more comment,
!here, overall, a criminogenic effect !as found !hether effect si=es !ere !eighted or not.
Moreover, stronger criminogenic effects !ere found for greater differences in time served
0
Dur guess Asee also -eis&urd et al., .//2C is that future analyses !ill find results vary
su&stantially &y design :uality for specific literatures. 'urthermore, !ithin correctional
treatment literatures, !e predict that the therapeutic integrity of treatment programs Aas measured
&y a :uantitative instrument such as the Correctional Program Assessment +nventory 1 CPA+
.///, Gendreau B Andre!s, .//2C !ill &e a more po!erful determinant of treatment outcomes
than !hether the evaluations !ere &ased on a randomi=ed or a good :uasi1e%perimental design.
+t is our intention to e%amine this issue in the future.
.2
A$a&le .C. $hese results appear to give some credence to the prison as Eschools of crimeF
perspective given that the proportion of lo! ris# offender effect si=es in each category in this
particular analysis !ere very similar.
6
<ven though the CIs for &oth and z
+
did not include / in
many of these comparisons, such marginal results may only &e indicative of Paul Meehl*s
infamous crud factor AMeehl, 2>>2C. -ith these huge sample si=es, achieving statistical
significance is of :uestiona&le import. Dne should &e mindful, ho!ever, that if further research
consistently supports findings of slight increases in recidivism then the enormous costs accruing
from the e%cessive use of prison may not &e defensi&le. Percentage changes of as ElittleF as
several percent have resulted in significant cost implications in medicine and other areas of
human services AKunt, 2>>5C. 'urthermore, in the criminal 7ustice field it is estimated that the
criminal career of 7ust one high1ris# offender EcostsF at least S2,///,/// ACohen, 2>>8; see
Cullen B Gendreau, .///C. Argua&ly, increases in recidivism of even a modest amount are
fiscally irresponsi&le, especially given the high incarceration rates currently in vogue in orth
America.
Dur concluding o&servation is this. -hile this study produced !orth!hile information
from a clinical and policy perspective, !e have to move &eyond analyses such as this one. $his
is not necessarily a criticism of meta1analysis, &ut it is a &lunt instrument !hen the studies
involved are so uninformative a&out essential study features that there is no recourse &ut to
generate &etter primary studies at the individual level. -e must, instead &egin to engage in more
sensitive evaluations, particularly in the case of the effects of incarceration. <valuators, in
concert !ith prison authorities, must carefully e%amine !hat goes on inside the E&lac# &o%F of
prison life, a topic !e need to #no! much more a&out A"onta B Gendreau, 2>>/; Gendreau B
6
$his is not necessarily a surprising result. -e speculate that most sentencing decisions reflect
the seriousness of the offense Aa !ea# predictor of recidivismC as !ell as other factors germane
to the courts. $o our #no!ledge, the courts have often &een reluctant to consider ris#
assessments, particularly those involving dynamic ris# factors, in sentencing. +n addition, many
of the studies availa&le to this analysis !ere produced many years ago !hen comprehensive ris#
assessments !ere rare.
..
Reyes, .//2C. +t should &e mandatory that periodic assessments of offenders* ad7ustment are
conducted every si% months to a year on a !ide variety of dynamic ris# factors. Assessments of
incarcerates* changes in &ehaviour Ae.g., attitudes, &eliefs, employment,academic performance,
treatment program performance, misconducts, etc.C and their relationship to recidivism !ill
uncover !ho may &enefit or &e harmed &y prison life and &y ho! much. Secondly, there should
&e assessments of ho! situational factors Ae.g., inmate turnover, availa&ility of treatment and
!or# programs, staff,inmate relations, institutional climateC affect prisoners* ad7ustment A"onta
B Gendreau, 2>>/; Gendreau et al., 2>>5C. $hirdly, !e must &e mindful of ho! offender
characteristics and prison situations interact A"onta B Gendreau, 2>>3C. Dnly then !ill !e
address the controversial issue of the effects of prisons on recidivism in a much more ade:uate
manner. At present, !e are em&ar#ing upon a research program to address some of these issues
in a series of primary studies !hich should offer a much more precise estimate of the effects of
prisons on recidivism.
.3
References
T Studies used in the meta1analysis
Andenaes, J. A2>48C. Does punishment deter crimeG Criminal La+ )uarterl#, --, 541>3.
Andre!s, D. A., Do!den, C., B Gendreau, P. A.//.C. Clinically relevant and
psychologically informed approaches to reduced re-ofending: A meta-
analytic study of human service, risk, need, responsivity, and other concerns
in justice contexts. Manuscript under revie!.
Andre!s, D. A., Minger, +., Koge, 9. D., "onta, J., Gendreau, P., B Cullen, '. $. A2>>/C.
Does correctional treatment !or#G A clinically1relevant and psychologically1informed meta1
analysis. Criminolog#, ./, 34>10/0.
T
Austin, J. A2>84C. Using early release to relieve prison cro!ding) A dilemma in pu&lic
policy. Crime and *elin0uenc#, 1. 234, 0/0104>.
T
Austin, J., Joe, R., Rris&erg, ", B Steele, P. A. A2>>/, MarchC. $he impact of 7uvenile
court sanctions) A court that !or#s. 5ocus: $!e %ational Council on Crime and *elin0uenc#,
215.
T
"a&st, D. J., B Mannering, J. -. A2>46C. Pro&ation versus imprisonment for similar
types of offenders) A comparison &y su&se:uent violations. 6ournal of (esearc! in Crime and
*elin0uenc#, ., 4/152.
T
"a&st, D. J., Roval, M., B eithercutt, M. G. A2>5.C. 9elationship of time served to
parole outcome for different classifications of &urglars &ased on males paroled in fifty
7urisdictions in 2>48 and 2>4>. 6ournal of (esearc! in Crime and *elin0uenc#, 7, >>1224.
T
"a&st, D. J., Moseley, -. K., Schmeidler, J., eithercutt, M. G., B Roval, M. A2>54C.
Assessing length of institutionali=ation in relation to parole outcome. Criminolog#, -3, 02160.
T
"ec#, J. ?., B Koffman, P. ". A2>54C. $ime served and release performance) A research
note. 6ournal of (esearc! in Crime and *elin0uenc#, -1, 2.5123..
T
"ennett, ?. A. A2>8>, SummerC. Jail as a part of pro&ation) -hat price punishmentG
8erspectives, 281.2.
T
"erecochea, J. <., B Jaman, D. 9. A2>82C. $ime served in prison and parole outcome:
&n experimental stud# A9esearch 9eport o. 4.C. Sacramento, CA) 9esearch Division,
California Department of Corrections.
.0
T
"er#, 9. A., Camp&ell, A., Rlap, 9., B -estern, ". A2>>.C. A "ayesian analysis of the
Colorado Springs spouse a&use e%periment. 6ournal of Criminal La+ and Criminolog#, /1,
25/1.//.
T
"onta, J. ?. A2>85C. $he diversion of incarcerated offenders to correctional half!ay
houses. 6ournal of (esearc! in Crime in *elin0uenc#, .3, 3/.13.3.
T
"onta, J. ?., "oyle, J., Motiu#, ?., BSonnichsen, P. A2>83C. 9estitution in correctional
half1!ay houses) Jictim satisfaction, attitudes and recidivism. Canadian 6ournal of
Criminolog#, .9, .551.>3.
"onta, J., B Gendreau, P. A2>>/C. 9ee%amining the cruel and unusual punishment of
prison life. La+ and :uman ;e!avior, -3, 3051344.
"onta, J., B Gendreau, P. A2>>3C. Commentary on Paulus and D=indolet) Models of the
effects of prison life. Criminal 6ustice and ;e!avior, .<, 2451253.
T
"ottcher, J., +sorena, $., B "elnas, M. A2>>4, JanuaryC. LE&*: & "oot camp and
intensive parole program= &n impact evaluation: Second #ear findings= Sacramento, CA)
Department of Louth Authority, 9esearch Division.
T
"oudouris, J., B $urn&ull, ". -. A2>86C. Shoc# pro&ation in +o!a. 6ournal of >ffender
Counseling, Services ? (e!a"ilitation, 7, 63145.
T
"ritt, C. ?., Gottfredson, M. 9., B Gold#amp, J. S. A2>>.C. Drug testing and pretrial
misconduct) An e%periment on the specific deterrent effects of drug monitoring defendants on
pretrial release. 6ournal of (esearc! in Crime and *elin0uenc#, .7, 4.158.
T
"uc#ner, J. C., B Chesney1?ind, M. A2>83C. Dramatic cures for 7uvenile crime) An
evaluation of a prisoner1run delin:uency prevention program. Criminal 6ustice and ;e!avior,
-<, ..51.05.
T
"urns, J. C., B Jito, G. '. A2>>6C. An impact analysis of the Ala&ama &oot camp
program. 5ederal 8ro"ation, 97, 43145.
T
"yrne, J. M., B Relly, ?. M. A2>8>C. (estructuring pro"ation as an intermediate
sanction: &n evaluation of t!e Massac!usetts intensive pro"ation supervision program=
-ashington, DC) ational +nstitute of Justice.
Cohen, M. A. A2>>8C. $he monetary value of saving a high1ris# youth= 6ournal of
)uantitative Criminolog#, -3, 613..
.6
T
Cohen, ". M., <den, 9., B ?a=ar, A. A2>>2C. $he efficacy of pro&ation versus
imprisonment in reducing recidivism of serious offenders in +srael. 6ournal of Criminal 6ustice,
-7, .431.5/.
T
Cooprider, R. -. A2>>.C. Pretrial &ond supervision) An empirical analysis !ith policy
implications. 5ederal 8ro"ation, 9@, 0210>.
Cullen, '. $., B Gendreau, P. A.///C. Assessing correctional reha&ilitation) Policy,
practice, and prospects App. 2/>1256C. +n J. Korney A<d.C. %ational Institute of 6ustice criminal
Austice .<<<: C!anges in decision making and discretion in t!e criminal Austice s#stem=
-ashington, DC) Department of Justice, ational +nstitute of Justice.
DeJong, C. A2>>5C. Survival analysis and specific deterrence) +ntegrating theoretical and
empirical models of recidivism. Criminolog#, 19, 6421656.
T
Department of Corrections A.///C. $!e t+elft! annual s!ock legislative report=
e! Lor#) Department of Correctional Services, Division of Parole.
T
Deschenes, <. P., $urner, S., B Petersilia, J. A2>>6C. A dual e%periment in intensive
community supervision) Minnesota*s prison diversion and enhanced supervised release
programs. $!e 8rison 6ournal, B9, 33/1364.
T
Deschenes, <. P., $urner, S., Green!ood, P. -., B Chiesa, J. A2>>4, JulyC. An
e%perimental evaluation of drug testing and treatment interventions for pro&ationers in Maricopa
County, Ari=ona. (&%* report 2*(CD-1/BD%I64=
T
Dodgson, R., Good!in, P., Ko!ard, P., ?le!ellyn1$homas, S., Mortimer, <., 9ussell, .,
B -einer, M. A.//2C. <lectronic monitoring of released prisoners) An evaluation of the Kome
Detention Curfe! scheme. :ome >ffice (esearc! Stud#, ...= ?ondon, UR) Kome Dffice
9esearch, Development, and Statistics Directorate.
Doo&, A. ., Sprott, J. "., Marinos, J., B Jarma, R. . A2>>8C. &n exploration of
>ntario residents vie+s of crime and t!e criminal Austice s#stem 2C7/D71-@9@D34. $oronto,
Dntario) University of $oronto, Centre of Criminology.
T
Dunford, '. -. A2>>/C. System1initiated !arrants for suspects of misdemeanor domestic
assault) A pilot study. 6ustice )uarterl#, B, 4321463.
T
Dunford, '. -., Kui=inga, D., <lliott, D. S. A2>>/C. $he role of arrest in domestic
assault) $he Dmaha police e%periment. Criminolog#, ./, 2831./4.
T
<r!in, ". A2>84C. $urning up the heat on pro&ationers in Georgia. 5ederal 8ro"ation,
9<, 251.0.
.4
T
<r!in, ". A2>85, JuneC. Evaluation of intensive pro"ation supervision in 'eorgia=
Georgia Department of Corrections.
T
'agan, J. A. A2>>2C. *o criminal sanctions deter drug crimesE Santa Monica, CA)
9AD Corporation.
T
'agan, J. A. A2>>0C. Do criminal sanctions deter drug crimesG +n D. ?. MacRen=ie B
C. D. Uchida A<ds.C, *rugs and crime: Evaluating pu"lic polic# initiatives= ?ondon, UR) Sage
Pu&lications.
T
'arrington, D. P., B "ennett, $. A2>82C. Police cautioning of 7uveniles in ?ondon.
;ritis! 6ournal of Criminolog#, .-, 2.31236.
T
'in#enauer, J. D. A2>8.C. Scared straig!tF &nd t!e panacea p!enomenon= <ngle!ood
Cliffs, J) Prentice1Kall, +nc.
T'lo!ers, G. $., B 9u&ac#, 9. ". A2>>2C. Special alternative to incarceration
evaluation= +C +nformation Center.
Gendreau, P. A2>>4C. $he principles of effective intervention !ith offenders. +n
A. $. Karland A<d.C, C!oosing correctional options t!at +ork: *efining t!e demand and
evaluating t!e suppl# App. 225123/C. $housand Da#s, CA) Sage Pu&lications.
Gendreau, P., B Andre!s, D. A. A.//2C. $he Correctional Program Assessment
+nventory 1 ./// ACPA+ 1 .///C. Dtta!a, Dntario) $3 Associates.
Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., Cullen, '. $., B Andre!s, D. A. A.//2C. $he effects of
community sanctions and incarceration on recidivism. +n Compendium of Effective Correctional
8rograms Avolume 2, chapter 0C. Dtta!a, Dntario) Correctional Service of Canada, Solicitor
General of Canada.
Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., B Cullen, '. A2>>>C. $he effects of prison sentences on
recidivism. A report to the Corrections 9esearch and Development and A&original Policy
"ranch, Solicitor General of Canada. Dtta!a, Dntario) Pu&lic -or#s B Government Services
Canada.
Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., Cullen, '., B Paparo==i, M. Ain pressC. $he common sense
revolution and correctional policy. +n J. McGuire A<d.C, >ffender re!a"ilitation and treatment:
Effective programs and policies to reduce reoffending= Chichester, UR) John -iley B Sons ?td.
Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., B 'ulton, ". A.///C. +ntensive pro&ation in pro&ation and
parole settings. +n C. 9. Kollin A<d.C, :and"ook of >ffender &ssessment and $reatment
App. 2>61./0C. Chichester, UR) John -iley B Sons ?td.
.5
Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., B ?a!, M. A. A2>>5C. Predicting prison misconducts.
Criminal 6ustice and ;e!avior, .3, 0201032.
Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., B Smith, P. A.///C. Generating rational correctional policies)
An introduction to advances in cumulating #no!ledge. Corrections Management )uarterl#, 3,
6.14/.
Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., B Smith, P. A.//2C. +mplementation guidelines for correctional
programs in the Ereal !orldF. +n G. A. "ernfeld, D. P. 'arrington, B A. -. ?eschied A<ds.C.
>ffender (e!a"ilitation in 8ractice, App..051.48C. Chichester, UR) John -iley B Sons, ?td.
Gendreau, P., B Reyes, D. A.//2C. Ma#ing prisons safer and more humane environments.
Canadian 6ournal of Criminolog#, 31, 2.3123/.
Gendreau, P., ?ittle, $., B Goggin, C. A2>>4C. A meta1analysis of adult offender
recidivism) -hat !or#sU Criminolog#, 13, 65614/5.
Gendreau, P., B Su&os#i, M. D. A2>52aC. Classical discrimination eyelid conditioning in
primary psychopaths. 6ournal of &"normal 8s#c!olog#, BB, .8.1284.
Gendreau, P., B Su&os#i, M. D. A2>52&C. Age and +@ discrimination conditioning of the
eyelid response. 6ournal of Experimental 8s#c!olog#, /7, 35>138..
T
Glaser, D., B Gordon, M. A. A2>>/C. Profita&le penalties for lo!er level courts.
6udicature, B1, .081.6..
T
Glaser, D., B -atts, 9. A2>>.C. <lectronic monitoring of drug offenders on pro&ation.
6udicature, B@, 22.1225.
T
Gordon, M. A., B Glaser, D. A2>>2C. $he use and effects of financial penalties in
municipal courts. Criminolog#, .7, 4621454.
T
Gottfredson, D. C., B "arton, -. K. A2>>3C. Deinstitutionali=ation of 7uvenile offenders.
Criminolog#, 1-, 6>21422.
T
Gottfredson, D. M. A2>>8, MayC. Choosing punishments) Crime control effects on
sentences. Sacramento, CA) ational +nstitute of Justice.
T
Gottfredson, D. M., Gottfredson, M. 9., B Garofalo, J. A2>55C. $ime served in prison
and parole outcomes among parolee ris# categories. 6ournal of Criminal 6ustice, 9, 212..
.8
T
Gottfredson, M. 9., Mitchell1Ker=feld, S. D., B 'lanagan, $. J. A2>8.C. Another loo# at
the effectiveness of parole supervision. 6ournal of (esearc! in Crime and *elin0uenc#, -7,
.551.>8.
T
Kaas, S., B ?atessa, <. J. A2>>6C. +ntensive supervision in a rural county) Diversion and
outcome. +n J. D. Smy#la B -. ?. Sel#e A<ds.C, Intermediate sanctions: Sentencing in t!e
-77<s= Cincinnati, DK) Anderson Pu&lishing Co.
Kedges, ?. J., B Dl#in, +. A2>86C. Statistical Met!ods for MetaD&nal#sis. San Diego,
CA) Academic Press.
T
Keil&run, A. "., Rnopf, +. J., B "runer, P. A2>54C. Criminal impulsivity and violence and
su&se:uent parole outcome. ;ritis! 6ournal of Criminolog#, -@, 3451355.
Keinsman, D. $., B Shadish, -. 9. A2>>4C. Assignment methods in e%perimentation)
-hen do nonrandomi=ed e%periments appro%imate ans!ers from randomi=ed e%perimentsG
8s#c!ological Met!ods, -, 260124>.
T
Kein=, J., Gala!ay, "., B Kudson, J. A2>54C. 9estitution or parole) A follo!1up study of
adult offenders. Social Service (evie+, 2081264.
T
Kirschel, J. D., Kutchinson, +. -., B Dean, C. -. A2>>.C. $he failure of arrest to deter
spouse a&use. 6ournal of (esearc! in Crime and *elin0uenc#, .7, 5133.
T
Kop#ins, A. A2>54C. +mprisonment and recidivism) A :uasi1e%perimental study.
6ournal of (esearc! in Crime and *elin0uenc#, -1, 2313..
T
Koro!it=, A., B -asserman, M. A2>5>C. $he effect of social control on delin:uent
&ehavior) A longitudinal test. Sociological 5ocus, -., 6315/.
Kunt, M. A2>>5C. :o+ science takes stock: $!e stor# of metaDanal#sis= e! Lor#, L)
9ussell Sage 'oundation.
Kunter, J. <., B Schmidt, '. ?. A2>>/C. Met!ods of metaDanal#sis= e!&ury Par#, CA)
Sage Pu&lications, +nc.
T
Jac#son, P. C. A2>83C. Some effects of parole supervision on recidivism. ;ritis!
6ournal of Criminolog#, .1, 25130.
T
Jaman, D. 9., Dic#over, 9. M., B "ennett, ?. A. A2>5.C. Parole outcome as a function of
time served. ;ritis! 6ournal of Criminolog#, -., 6130.
.>
T
Jolin, A., B Stipa#, ". A2>>.C. Drug treatment and electronically monitored home
confinement) An evaluation of a community1&ased sentencing option. Crime and *elin0uenc#,
1/, 268125/.
T
Jones, M., B 9oss, D. ?. A2>>5C. +s less &etterG "oot camp, regular pro&ation and
rearrest in orth Carolina. &merican 6ournal of Criminal 6ustice, .-, 2051242.
T
Ramara, S., B e&on, ?. A2>>2, MarchC. <valuation of the first phase of the parole
violators pro7ect. Dregon) Department of Corrections, +nformation Systems Division, 9esearch
and Program Analysis.
T
Rlein, M. -. A2>84C. ?a&eling theory and delin:uency policy. Criminal 6ustice and
;e!avior, -1, 0515>.
T
Rraus, J. A2>58C. 9emand in custody as a deterrent in 7uvenile 7urisdiction. ;ritis!
6ournal of Criminolog#, -/, .861.8>.
T
Rraus, J. A2>82C. Police caution of 7uvenile offenders) A research note. &ustralian and
%e+ Gealand 6ournal of Criminolog#, -3, >21>0.
T
?angan, P. A. A2>>0C. "et!een prison and pro&ation) +ntermediate sanctions. Science,
.@3, 5>215>3.
T
?anger, S. A2>5>C. $he 9ah!ay State Prison ?ifers* Group) A critical analysis. Union,
J) Department of Sociology and Social -or#, Rean College of e! Jersey.
T
?atessa, <. J. A2>85C. $he effectiveness of intensive supervision !ith high ris#
pro&ationers. +n ". 9. McCarthy A<d.C, Intermediate punis!ments: Intensive supervision, !ome
confinement and electronic surveillance App. >>122.C. Monsey, L) -illo!tree Press.
T
?atessa, <. J., B Gordon, J. A. A2>>0C. <%amining the factors related to success or
failure !ith felony pro&ationers) A study of intensive supervision. +n C. ". 'ields A<d.C,
Innovative trends and specialized strategies in communit#D"ased corrections App. 43183C.
e! Lor#, L) Garland.
T
?atessa, <. J., B Jito, G. '. A2>88C. $he effects of intensive supervision on shoc#
pro&ationers. 6ournal of Criminal 6ustice, -@, 32>133/.
?atimer, J., Do!den, C., B Muise, D. A.//2C. $!e effectiveness of restorative Austice
practices: & metaDanal#sis A9eport num&er 99.//214eC. Dtta!a, Dntario) Department of
Justice Canada.
T
?e"lanc, M., B "eaumont, K. A2>>2C. ?*efficacitV de la dV7udiciarisation W MontrVal en
2>82. Canadian 6ournal of Criminolog#, 11, 4218..
3/
T
?e"lanc, M., B "eaumont, K. A2>>.C. $he effectiveness of 7uvenile 7ustice in @ue&ec)
A natural e%periment in implementing formal diversion and a 7ustice model. +n 9. 9. Corrado,
. "ola, 9. ?inden, B M. ?e"lanc A<ds.C, 6uvenile Austice in Canada: & t!eoretical and
anal#tical assessment App. .83132.C. $oronto, Dntario) "utter!orths.
T
?erner, M. J. A2>55C. $he effectiveness of a definite sentence parole paradigm.
Criminolog#, -9, .221..0.
?eschied, A. -., B Gendreau, P. A2>84C. $he declining role of reha&ilitation in Canadian
7uvenile 7ustice) +mplications of underlying theory in the Loung Dffenders Act. Canadian
6ournal of Criminolog#, ./, 32613...
?eschied, A. -., B Gendreau, P. A2>>0C. Doing 7ustice in Canada) LDA policies that can
promote community safety. Canadian 6ournal of Criminolog#, 1@, .>213/3.
T
?evi, R. A2>8.C. 9elative redemption) ?a&eling in 7uvenile restitution. 6uvenile and
5amil# Court 6ournal, 11, 3123.
T
?e!is, 9. J. A2>83C. Scared Straight California style) <valuation of the San @uentin
S:uires program. Criminal 6ustice and ;e!avior, -<, ./>1..4.
?ipsey, M. -., B -ilson, D. ". A2>>3C. $he efficacy of psychological, educational, and
&ehavioral treatment) Confirmation from meta1analysis. &merican 8s#c!ologist, 3/, 228212./>.
?ipsey, M. -., B -ilson, D. ". A.//2C. 8ractical metaDanal#sis= ?ondon) Sage
Pu&lications.
T
?loyd, C., Mair, G., B Kough, M. A2>>0C. Explaining reconviction rates: & critical
anal#sis 2:ome >ffice (esearc! Stud# %o= -1@4= ?ondon, UR) Kome Dffice 9esearch and
Planning Unit 9eport.
T
MacRen=ie, D., B Souryal, C. A2>>3C. Shoc# incarceration and recidivism) A multi1site
evaluation. 'inal 9eport APart JC. Maryland, J) ational +nstitute of Justice.
T
MacRen=ie, D., "eame, 9., McDo!all, D., B Souryal, C. A2>>6C. "oot camps, prisons
and recidivism in eight states. Criminolog#, 11, 3.51365.
MacRen=ie, D., -ilson, D. "., B Rider, S. ". A.//2C. <ffects of correctional &oot camps
on offending. &nnals, &&8SS, 9B/, 2.41203.
Masters, J. C., "urish, $. G., Kollon, S. D., B 9imm, D. C. A2>85C. ;e!avior $!erap#:
$ec!ni0ues and Empirical 5indings 21rd ed=4. $oronto, Dntario) Karcourt "race Jovanovich,
Pu&lishers.
32
Matson, J., B Di?oren=o, $. A2>80C. 8unis!ment and its alternatives: & ne+ perspective
for "e!avior modification= e! Lor#) Springer.
Mauer, M. A2>>>C. (ace to reincarcerate. e! Lor#) $he e! Press.
T
McCold, P., B -achtel, ". A2>>8, MayC. (estorative policing experiment: $!e
;et!le!em 8enns#lvania 8olice 5amil# 'roup Conferencing 8roAect= Pipersville, PA)
Community Service 'oundation.
T
McCord, J. A2>86C. Deterrence and the light touch of the la!) Deterrence or la&ellingG
+n D. P. 'arrington B J. Gunn A<ds.C, (eactions to crime: $!e pu"lic, t!e police, courts, and
prisons App. 53186C. e! Lor#) John -iley and Sons ?td.
T
McDonald, D. C. A2>84C. 8unis!ment +it!out +alls= e! Jersey) 9utgers University
Press.
McGra!, R. D., B -ong, S. P. A2>>.C. A common language effect si=e. 8s#c!ological
;ulletin, ---, 3421346.
Meehl, P. <. A2>>2C. -hy summaries of research on psychological theories are often
uninterpreta&le. +n 9. <. Sno! B D. <. -iley A<ds.C, Improving In0uir# in Social Science,
App. 2316>C. Killsdale, J) ?a!rence <rl&aum Associates.
T
Miller, $. +. A2>82C. Conse:uences of 9estitution. La+ and :uman ;e!avior, 9, 2125.
T
Motiu#, ?. ?., "elcourt, 9. ?., B "onta, J. A2>>6, JanuaryC. Managing high1ris#
offenders) A post1detention follo!1up.
Motiu#, ?.?., B "ro!n, S. ?. A2>>0C. Dffender needs identification and analysis in
community corrections. 5orum on Corrections (esearc!, @, 20124.
T
Mott, J. A2>83C. Police decisions for dealing !ith 7uvenile offenders. ;ritis! 6ournal of
Criminolog#, .1, .0>1.4..
agin, D. S. A2>>8C. Criminal deterrence research at the outset of the t!enty1first
century. +n M. $onry A<d.C, Crime and Austice: & revie+ of researc! Hol= .1 App. 210.C. Chicago,
+?) University of Chicago Press.
T
iemeyer, M., B Shichor, D. A2>>4C. A preliminary study of a large victim,offender
reconciliation program. 5ederal 8ro"ation, @<, 3/130.
T
irel, 9., ?andau, S. '., Se&&a, ?., B Sagiv, ". A2>>5C. $he effectiveness of service
!or#) An analysis of recidivism. 6ournal of )uantitative Criminolog#, -1, 531>2.
3.
T
urco, D. ., Kanlon, $. <., "ateman, 9. -., B Rinloc#, $. -. A2>>6C. Drug a&use
treatment in the conte%t of correctional surveillance. 6ournal of Su"stance &"use $reatment, -.,
2>1.5.
Drsagh, $., B Chen, J.19. A2>88C. $he effect of time served on recidivism) An
interdisciplinary theory. 6ournal of )uantitative Criminolog#, 3, 2661252.
T
Pate, A. M., B Kamilton, <. <. A2>>.C. 'ormal and informal deterrents to domestic
violence) $he Dade County spouse assault e%periment. &merican Sociological (evie+, 9B,
4>214>5.
T
Pearson, '. S. A2>85C. <valuation of e! Jersey*s intensive supervision program.
Crime and *elin0uenc#, 13, 0351008.
T
Peters, M., Al&right, R., Gim&el, C., $homas, D., ?a%ton, G., Dpanga, M., B Affler&ach,
M. A2>>4, MarchC. Evaluation of t!e impact of "oot camps for Auvenile offenders= Denver
+nterim 9eport o. DJP1>21C1/22. U.S. Department of Justice.
T
Petersilia, J. A2>>/C. -hen pro&ation &ecomes more dreaded than prison. 5ederal
8ro"ation, 93, .31.5.
T
Petersilia, J., B $urner, S. A2>84, JulyC. 8rison versus pro"ation in California:
Implications for Crime and offender recidivism= Santa Monica, CA) 9and report.
T
Petersilia, J., B $urner, S. A2>>/C. Comparing intensive and regular supervision for
high1ris# pro&ationers) <arly results from an e%periment in California. Crime and *elin0uenc#,
1@, 85122.
T
Petersilia, J., B $urner, S. A2>>3C. Evaluating intensive supervision pro"ationIparole:
(esults of a nation+ide experiment= -ashington, DC) ational +nstitute of Justice.
9osenthal, 9. A2>>2C. MetaD&nal#tic 8rocedures for Social (esearc!= "everly Kills, CA)
Sage Pu&lications.
9osno!, 9. ?., B 9osenthal, 9. A2>>3C. ;eginning "e!avioural researc!= & conceptual
primer= e! Lor#) Macmillan Pu&lishing Company.
T
9oy, S. A2>>3C. $!o types of 7uvenile restitution programs in t!o Mid!estern counties)
A comparative study. 5ederal 8ro"ation, 9B, 08163.
T
9oy, S. A2>>6C. Juvenile restitution and recidivism in a Mid!estern county. 5ederal
8ro"ation, 97, 6614..
33
T
Schneider, A. ?. A2>84C. 9estitution and recidivism rates of 7uvenile offenders) 9esults
from four e%perimental studies. Criminolog#, .3, 633166..
T
Se&&a, ?. A2>5>C. Amnesty) A :uasi1e%periment. ;ritis! 6ournal of Criminolog#, -7,
613/.
Shadish, -. 9., B 9agsdale, R. A2>>4C. 9andom versus nonrandom assignment in
controlled e%periments) Do you get the same ans!erG 6ournal of Consulting and Clinical
8s#c!olog#, @3, 2.>/123/6.
T
Sherman, ?. -., B "er#, 9. A. A2>80C. $he specific deterrent effects of arrest for
domestic assault. &merican Sociological (evie+, 37= .421.5..
T
Sherman, ?. -., Schmidt, J. D., 9ogan, D. P., Gartin, P. 9., Cohn, <. G., Collins, D. J., B
"acich, A. 9. A2>>2C. 'rom initial deterrence to long1term escalation) Short1custody arrest for
poverty ghetto domestic violence. Criminolog#, .7, 8.2180>.
T
Sherman, ?. -., Strang, K., B -oods, D. J. A.///, ovem&erC. (ecidivism patterns in
t!e Can"erra (eintegrative S!aming Experiments 2(ISE4= Can&erra, Australia) Centre for
9estorative Justice, 9esearch School of Social Sciences, Australian ational University.
T
Shichor, D., B "inder, A. A2>8.C. Community restitution for 7uveniles) An approach
and preliminary evaluation. Criminal 6ustice (evie+, B, 0416/.
Song, ?., B ?ie&, 9. A2>>3C. (ecidivism: $!e effect of incarceration and lengt! of time
served= Dlympia) -A) -ashington State +nstitute for Pu&lic Policy.
T
Smith, D. A., B Gartin, P. 9. A2>8>C. Specifying specific deterrence) $he influence of
arrest on future criminal activity. &merican Sociological (evie+, 93, >012/4.
T
Smith, ?. G., B A#ers, 9. ?. A2>>3C. A comparison of recidivism of 'lorida*s
community control and prison) A five1year survival analysis. 6ournal of (esearc! in Crime and
*elin0uenc#, 1<, .451.>..
T
Star, D. A2>5>, JuneC. Summar# parole: & six and t+elve mont! follo+Dup evaluation=
(esearc! (eport %o= @<= Sacramento, CA) 9esearch Unit, California Department of
Corrections.
T
Stephenson, 9. M., B Scarpitti, '. 9. A2>50C. Group +nteraction as $herapy) $he use of
the small group in corrections. Contri"utions in Sociolog#, %o= -1. -estport, C$) Green!ood
Press.
30
T
Sugg, D., Moore, ?., B Ko!ard, P. A.//2C. <lectronic monitoring and offending
&ehaviour) 9econviction results for the second year of trials of curfe! orders. 5indings, -3-=
?ondon, UR) Kome Dffice.
T
$olman, 9. M., B -eis=, A. A2>>6C. Coordinated community intervention for domestic
violence) $he effects of arrest and prosecution on recidivism of !oman a&use perpetrators.
Crime and *elin0uenc#, 3-, 08210>6.
T
$urner, S., B Petersilia, J. A2>>.C. 'ocusing on high1ris# parolees) An e%periment to
reduce commitments to the $e%as Department of Corrections. 6ournal of (esearc! in Crime and
*elin0uenc#, .7, 30142.
T
Um&reit, M. S., B Coates, 9. ". A2>>3C. Cross1site analysis of victim1offender
mediation in four states. Crime and *elin0uenc#, 17, 6461686.
T
Janess, S. 9. A2>>.C. +ntensive pro&ation versus prison outcomes in +ndiana) -ho
could &enefitG 6ournal of Contemporar# Criminal 6ustice, /, 3621340.
van Joorhis, P., "ro!ning, S. ?., Simon, M., B Gordon, J. A2>>5C. $he meaning of
punishment) +nmates* orientation to the prison e%perience. $!e 8rison 6ournal, 55, 2361245.
T
Jiano, <. C. A2>56C. Gro!ing up in an affluent society) Delin:uency and recidivism in
su&ur&an America. 6ournal of Criminal 6ustice, 1, ..31.36.
T
Jito, G. '. A2>83C. Developments in shoc# pro&ation) A revie! of research findings and
policy implications. 5ederal 8ro"ation, 3/, ..1.5.
T
Jito, G. '., B Allen, K. <. A2>82C. Shoc# pro&ation in Dhio) A comparison of outcomes.
International 6ournal of >ffender $!erap# and Comparative Criminolog#, .9, 5/154.
T
Jito, G. '., Kolmes, 9. M., B -ilson, D. G. A2>86C. $he effect of shoc# and regular
pro&ation upon recidivism) A comparative analysis. &merican 6ournal of Criminal 6ustice, 7,
26.124..
T
-agner, D. A2>8>, SummerC. 9educing criminal ris#) An evaluation of the high ris#
offender intensive supervision pro7ect. 8erspectives, ..1.5.
T
-aldron, J. A., B Angelino, K. 9. A2>55C. Shoc# pro&ation) A natural e%periment on the
effect of a short period of incarceration. $!e 8rison 6ournal, 9B, 0616..
T
-al#er, ., 'arrington, D. P., B $uc#er, G. A2>82C. 9econviction rates of adult males
after different sentences. ;ritis! 6ournal of Criminolog#, .-, 365134/.
36
-eis&urd, D., ?um, C. M., B Petrosino, A. A.//2C. Does research design affect study
outcomes in criminal 7usticeG &nnals, &&8SS, 9B/, 6/15/.
T
-eis&urd, D., -aring, <., B Chayet, <. A2>>6C. Specific deterrence in a sample of
offenders convicted of !hite1collar crimes. Criminolog#, 11, 68514/5.
T
-heeler, G. 9., B Kissong, 9. J. A2>88C. A survival time analysis of criminal sanctions
for misdemeanor offenders. Evaluation (evie+, -., 62/16.5.
T
-ie&ush, 9. G. A2>>3C. Juvenile intensive supervision) $he impact on felony offenders
diverted from institutional placement. Crime and *elin0uenc#, 17, 4818>.
T
-il#ins, ?. $. A2>68C. A small comparative study of the results of pro&ation. ;ritis!
6ournal of *elin0uenc#, /, ./21./>.
-il#s, J., B Martinson, 9. A2>54C. +s the treatment of criminal offenders really
necessaryG 5ederal 8ro"ation, 3<, 318.
-ood, P. B Grasmic#, K. A2>>>C. $o!ard the development of punishment e:uivalencies)
Male and female inmates rate the severity of alternative sanctions compared to prison. 6ustice
)uarterl#, -@, 2>16/.
T
-or=ella, D. A2>>.C. $he Mil!au#ee Municipal Court Day 'ine Pro7ect. +n
D. C. McDonald, J. Green, C. -or=ella A<ds.C, *a# fines in &merican courts: $!e Staten Island
and Mil+aukee experiments App. 42154C. -ashington, DC) ational +nstitute of Justice.
Mam&le, <., B Porporino, '. J. A2>88C. Coping "e!avior and adaptation in prison
inmates= e! Lor#, L) Spring1Jerlag.
34
A((endi% A
$odin" Guide
Source
2 7ournal
. &oo#
3 report
0 conference paper
6 thesis,dissertation
$oder
2 PG
. PS
3 CG
Pu#lished
2 yes
. no
Decade of Pu#lication
2 N2>3>
. 2>0/s
3 2>6/s
0 2>4/s
6 2>5/s
4 2>8/s
5 2>>/s
8 O2>>>
> M+SS+G
35
)ocation
2 Australia
. Canada
3 +srael
0 e! Mealand
6 US
4 UR
> M+SS+G
A"e
2 adult AO8/IC
. 7uvenile AO8/IC
3 mi%ed A./I 1 8/IC
> M+SS+G
Gender
2 male AO8/IC
. female AO8/IC
3 mi%ed A./I 1 8/IC
> M+SS+G
Race
2 !hite AO8/IC
. minority AO8/IC
3 mi%ed A./I 1 8/IC
> M+SS+G
Ris1
2 lo!
. high
3 midpoint on ris# scale
> M+SS+G
38
Ris2
2 uses valid psychometric
. uses demographic information, N. priors
3 uses recidivism I
> M+SS+G
Em(lo&ment of Evaluator
2 yes
. no
> M+SS+G
Involvement of Evaluator
2 yes
. no
> M+SS+G
*ualified Staff
2 yes
. no
> M+SS+G
Theor&+Practice of Punishment
2 yes
. no
> M+SS+G
Desi"n *ualit&
2 219
. strong
3 !ea#
> M+SS+G
3>
,ollo!-u(
2 4 months 1 2 year
. 2 year 1 3 years
3 3 years or more
> M+SS+G
$ontrol
2 less prison
. +SP
3 regular pro&ation
0 diversion
6 other
4 no sanction
> M+SS+G
)-S Incarceration .months/
)-S Sanction .months/
E%(erimental treatment time .months/
$ontrol treatment time .months/
R% Difference1 .months/
R% Difference2
2 N> months
. 2/ 1 2> months
3 O./ months
)-S R% .months/
0/
-utcome
2 incarceration
. conviction
3 arrest
0 parole violation
6 contact !ith the court
4 mi%ed
5 other
> M+SS+G
Sanction1
2 +SP
. Scared Straight
3 restitution
0 incarceration) more versus less
6 incarceration versus community1&ased sanction
4 &oot camp versus community1&ased sanction
5 electronic monitoring
8 drug testing
> M+SS+G
2/ arrest
22 fines
Sanction2
2 community1&ased
. institution
> M+SS+G
Recidivism: 0 Treatment
Recidivism: 0 $ontrol
Direction of Predictor
2 e:ual recidivism rates
. e%perimental O control
3 e%perimental N control
02
E%treme Grou(s
/ yes
2 no
Attrition
/ yes
2 no
Su#1ect Descri(tion
2 yes
/ no
'ulti(le -utcomes
2 yes
/ no