A Dark Figure of Corrections

Abstract

Given recent fiscal issues and the continual struggle to reduce the nation’s overuse of incarceration, a renewed focus has been placed on the efforts of community corrections and alternative sanctions. Halfway houses represent a common and, until recently, infrequently evaluated intervention for inmates returning to the community. Although the model has advanced over the years, often providing an array of treatments and services, scant research has examined the impact such programs have on participants’ success in the community. These and other interventions like them, although providing a needed service, create additional avenues for failure and recidivism. However, failures that result in a return to prison are rarely disentangled, representing a “dark figure” of corrections. The current study explores failure types, prevalence, and competing risk predictors for a sample (N = 580) of halfway house participants. Findings both explore and describe the added and varying risks associated with participation community corrections interventions.

It’s Not Technically a Crime

“…Specifically, the current study attempts to expand on Hamilton and Campbell's (2013) work by testing the cross-over prediction power of recidivism models on TVs. Above all, the primary support for a violation-recidivism relationship is driven by a basic and untested assumption that arbitrarily combines the outcome measures of new crimes and TVs.…”

“…Absconders in particular have been shown to be a rather unique composition of offenders in general patterns of violating (Wojtowicz & Tongyin, 2006) and when compared with other violators (Hamilton & Campbell, 2013). One reason for higher AUC values among these two outcomes may be due to the existence of more specific differences between the 6v-group, absconders, and other violators.…”

“…Although many scholars have argued against the use of TVs as proxies (Gray, Fields, & Maxwell, 2001;Hamilton & Campbell, 2013;Lowenkamp, Latessa, & Smith, 2006;Moczydlowski, 1980;Olson & Lurigio, 2000;Petersilia & Turner, 1993;J. Although many scholars have argued against the use of TVs as proxies (Gray, Fields, & Maxwell, 2001;Hamilton & Campbell, 2013;Lowenkamp, Latessa, & Smith, 2006;Moczydlowski, 1980;Olson & Lurigio, 2000;Petersilia & Turner, 1993;J.…”

“…Although many scholars have argued against the use of TVs as proxies (Gray, Fields, & Maxwell, 2001;Hamilton & Campbell, 2013;Lowenkamp, Latessa, & Smith, 2006;Moczydlowski, 1980;Olson & Lurigio, 2000;Petersilia & Turner, 1993;J. In addition, recent research indicates that there are notable, patterned differences between parolees who technically violate and those who commit new crimes (Hamilton & Campbell, 2013). In addition, recent research indicates that there are notable, patterned differences between parolees who technically violate and those who commit new crimes (Hamilton & Campbell, 2013).…”

Uncommonly Observed

“…Since 1975, there have been less than 10 evaluations of halfway-out programs, and none explicitly examine the impact of HWHs on recidivism (Seiter & Kadela, 2003). The few studies that have, focused on characteristics in client attrition (Donnelly & Forschner, 1984; Wojtowicz & Tongyin, 2006), treatment and program integrity (Lowenkamp, Latessa, & Smith, 2006), ecological context (Wright, Pratt, Lowenkamp, & Latessa, 2011), technical violations and return types (Hamilton & Campbell, 2013), federal HWHs (Taxman, Rexroat, Shilton, Mericle, & Lerch, 2010), or economic costs (Zhang, Roberts, & Callanan, 2006). The current study adds to this literature and moves beyond by focusing the discussion to the intrinsic interest and question held by practitioners and policymakers regarding HWH utilization— Does it work?…”