Predictors of Success and Recidivism in a Home Incarceration Program

Stanz, Robert; Tewksbury, Richard

doi:10.1177/0032885500080003006

Cited by 23 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It is well documented that sex is a strong predictor of recidivism with males more likely to recidivate than females (Bales and Mears 2008;Beck and Shipley 1987;Langan and Levin 2002;Kubrin and Stewart 2006). Race has been consistently found to predict recidivism, with Blacks significantly more likely to recidivate than Whites (Bales and Mears 2008;Beck and Shipley 1987;Kohl et al 2008;Langan and Levin 2002;Stanz and Tewksbury 2000;Wolfgang et al 1972). Conclusions from prior research related to recidivism differences between Hispanic and non-Hispanic inmates are not as conclusive with some evidence suggesting that Hispanics are somewhat less likely to recidivate compared to non-Hispanics (Langan and Levin 2002;Langan et al 2003), other studies find the opposite effect (Anderson et al 1991;Beck and Shipley 1997), and some find no differences in recidivism between Hispanics and non-Hispanics Kubrin and Stewart 2006).…”

Section: Precision Matchingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the impact of imprisonment on recidivism

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives There is debate about the extent to which imprisonment deters reoffending. Further, while there is a large literature on the effects of imprisonment, methodologically sound and rigorous studies are the exception due to problematic sample characteristics and study designs. This paper assesses the effect of imprisonment on reoffending relative to a prison diversion program, Community Control, for over 79,000 felons sentenced to state prison and 65,000 offenders sentenced to Community Control between 1994 and 2002 in Florida. Methods The effect of imprisonment on recidivism is examined within one-, two-, and three-year follow-up periods using Logistic Regression, Precision Matching, and Propensity Score Matching.Results Findings indicate that imprisonment exerts a criminogenic effect and that this substantive conclusion holds across all three methods. Conclusions The main contribution of this study is that various methods yield results that are at least in a similar direction and support overall conclusions of prior literature that imprisonment has a criminogenic effect on reoffending compared to non-incarcerative sanctions. Limitations and directions for future research are noted.

show abstract

Section: Precision Matchingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the impact of imprisonment on recidivism

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With regard to "front-end" net-widening as a consequence of EM, some findings have been reported by Berry (1985), Schmidt (1991), andVaughn (1987). However, the evidence reported to date has been limited to demonstrations of the relative "low risk" of the offenders most often sentenced to EM (Baumer and Mendelsohn, 1992;Bonta et al, 2000;Stanz and Tewksbury, 2000). No studies that we know of have systematically examined the "mechanism that operates to widen the net," which Morris and Tonry (1990:225) contend lies in judicial decision making in the context of newly available intermediate punishments.…”

Section: Prior Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Under Surveillance: An Empirical Test of the Effectiveness and Consequences of Electronic Monitoring

Padgett

Bales

Blomberg

2006

Criminology & Public Policy

117

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research Summary: This study addresses the effectiveness of electronic monitoring (EM) for serious offenders supervised in the community. Using data on 75,661 offenders placed on home confinement in Florida from 1998 to 2002, we find that both radio‐frequency and global positioning system monitoring significantly reduce the likelihood of technical violations, reoffending, and absconding for this population of offenders. Additionally, we find that offenders placed on home confinement with EM are significantly more serious than those placed on home confinement without EM, which casts doubt on the anticipated net‐widening effect of this particular intermediate sanction. Policy Implications: Given the anticipated increase in the use of EM in the immediate future, policy makers will surely be faced with questions about its effectiveness in preventing or deterring further criminal activity among offenders in the community, as well as concerns about the intensity of surveillance it affords and a subsequent increase in the likelihood of a prison sentence or return to prison for technical violations. The results presented here suggest that such concerns may be overblown and that EM of offenders in the community may prove an effective public safety alternative to prison. Additional implications of this research include decision making regarding which offenders should be placed on EM, which type of monitoring device will be the most cost‐effective and efficient, and the potential for front‐end net‐widening if states adopt the practice of “Got ‘em?’ Use ‘em.’”

show abstract

“…The arrest history during the one-year period following discharge from the TLC-TASC program was dichotomized into the outcomes of arrest free being coded as 1 and rearrest of any kind being coded as 0. The collapsing of the arrest history into a dichotomous measure is frequently used in impact studies of interventions, including drug interventions (e.g., Gainey, Payne, & O'Toole, 2000;Mears & Kelly, 2002;Stanz & Tewksbury, 2000). Independent Variables.…”

Section: Journal Of Offender Rehabilitationmentioning

confidence: 99%