Mandating treatment for drug possessors: The impact of Senate Bill 123 on the criminal justice system in Kansas

Stemen, Don; Rengifo, Andrés F.

doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2009.04.010

Cited by 10 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, scholars who have looked more closely at the Kansas reforms recently came to the opposite conclusion. Analyzing sentencing records, Stemen and Rengifo () find that rather than diverting prison‐bound cases, the shift instead increased the intensity and length of supervision for cases that otherwise would have been sentenced to low‐level probation supervision. This increased surveillance and lengthened supervision period led to higher revocation rates than would have been expected with traditional probation (Rengifo and Stemen ).…”

Section: Untangling Probation and Incarceration Trendsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…6 In addition, the enhanced monitoring by probation officers (and in some cases, law enforcement as well) makes the detection of minor violations and offenses more likely. Research has consistently documented that when the restrictions and monitoring associated with probation are increased, probation violations and revocations to prison grow (Stemen and Rengifo 2009;Blomberg 2003;Petersilia 2002;Petersilia 1999;Petersilia and Turner 1993;Lucken 1997;Blomberg and Lucken 1994;Lerman 1975).…”

Section: Perspectives On Probationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Paradox of Probation: Community Supervision in the Age of Mass Incarceration

Phelps¹

2013

Law & Policy

193

168

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

After four decades of steady growth, U.S. states’ prison populations finally appear to be declining, driven by a range of sentencing and policy reforms. One of the most popular reform suggestions is to expand probation supervision in lieu of incarceration. However, the classic socio-legal literature suggests that expansions of probation instead widen the net of penal control and lead to higher incarceration rates. This article reconsiders probation in the era of mass incarceration, providing the first comprehensive evaluation of the role of probation in the build-up of the criminal justice system. The results suggest that probation was not the primary driver of mass incarceration in most states, nor is it likely to be a simple panacea to mass incarceration. Rather, probation serves both capacities, acting as an alternative and as a net-widener, to varying degrees across time and place. Moving beyond the question of diversion versus net widening, this article presents a new theoretical model of the probation-prison link that examines the mechanisms underlying this dynamic. Using regression models and case studies, I analyze how states can modify the relationship between probation and imprisonment by changing sentencing outcomes and the practices of probation supervision. When combined with other key efforts, reforms to probation can be part of the movement to reverse mass incarceration.

show abstract

Section: Untangling Probation and Incarceration Trendsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Perspectives On Probationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Paradox of Probation: Community Supervision in the Age of Mass Incarceration

Phelps¹

2013

Law & Policy

193

168

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…§21-4729 et seq. ), which created mandatory communitybased drug treatment for low-level drug offenders, shifted the focus of supervision away from enforcement to treatment; the close partnership between community corrections and private treatment providers effectively instituted the language of relapse prevention into the discourses and objectives of community corrections practice (Stemen & Rengifo, 2009). Similarly, the Michigan Department of Energy, Labor, and Economic Growth has worked closely with the MDOC to strengthen protocols of skill development and job referrals for offenders leaving prison; in turn, employment and financial stability have been incorporated into the discourse and objectives of release planning and supervision.…”

Section: Inter-agency Collaborationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cents and sensibility: A case study of corrections reform in Kansas and Michigan

Rengifo

Stemen

Dooley

et al. 2010

Journal of Criminal Justice

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…A large proportion of these articles consider issues associated with drug‐courts and court‐mandated treatment (Best, Wood, Sweeting, Morgan, & Day, 2010; Bouffard & Taxman, 2004; Cresswell & Deschenes, 2001; Evans, Anglin, Urada, & Yang, 2011; Finch et al., 2003; Fosados, Evans, & Hser, 2007; Frisman et al., 2006; La Prairie, Gliksman, Erickson, Wall, & Newton‐Taylor, 2002; Maeder & Wiener, 2008) while far fewer investigate their implications with regard to arrest‐referral schemes (Corlett, Skrzypiec, & Hunter, 2005; Sondhi & Huggins, 2005) and pre‐plea referral programs (Passey, Flaherty, & Didcott, 2006). A substantial number of studies investigate structural considerations within the broader context of treatment for substance‐using offenders both within contained settings and in the community (Friedmann, Taxman, & Henderson, 2007; Jessup, 2001; Kubiak, Arfken, & Gibson, 2009; Lehman, Fletcher, Wexler, & Melnick, 2009; Oser, Knudsen, Staton‐Tindall, & Leukefeld, 2009; Oser, Knudsen, Staton‐Tindall, Taxman, & Leukefeld, 2009; Stemen & Rengifo, 2009).…”

Section: Evaluations (N = 130)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Coerced Treatment of Substance‐Using Offenders Lead to Improvements in Substance Use and Recidivism? A Review of the Treatment Efficacy Literature

Bright

Martire

2013

Australian Psychologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of legally coerced treatment for substance-using offenders is now widespread internationally. To justify the continued use of coerced treatment, policy-makers, practitioners, and researchers are obliged to demonstrate the effectiveness and limitations of such programs. This article aims to provide a broad overview of scholarship on the efficacy of coerced treatment including an examination of factors that may limit or augment any benefits. A literature review was undertaken in which articles were classified as general topic reviews, critical reviews, and evaluations. Evaluation articles were further categorised into those examining implementation or process factors, delivery factors, participation/ retention, and the impact of coerced treatment on the outcome measures of substance use and recidivism. In the case of critical reviews and evaluation studies, we present a brief review of the literature in each area. For articles on efficacy, we adopt a hypothesis-testing approach to examine substance use and criminal justice outcomes of coerced treatment in each stage of the criminal justice system. We identify specific gaps in the research literature and recommend that new programs incorporate research agendas (e.g., appropriate comparison groups) prior to implementation.

show abstract

Mandating treatment for drug possessors: The impact of Senate Bill 123 on the criminal justice system in Kansas

Cited by 10 publications

References 20 publications

The Paradox of Probation: Community Supervision in the Age of Mass Incarceration

The Paradox of Probation: Community Supervision in the Age of Mass Incarceration

Cents and sensibility: A case study of corrections reform in Kansas and Michigan

Does Coerced Treatment of Substance‐Using Offenders Lead to Improvements in Substance Use and Recidivism? A Review of the Treatment Efficacy Literature

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About