Studying the community corrections field: Applying neo-institutional theories to a hidden element of mass social control

DeMichele, Matthew

doi:10.1177/1362480614526276

Cited by 28 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Building off pioneering work on parole (e.g. Simon, 1993) and intermediate sanctions (Morris & Tonry, 1991), scholars are beginning to investigate “mass social control,” particularly the expansion of community sanctions (DeMichele, 2014). Critical to this movement has been work on “mass supervision” in Europe and beyond (Robinson, McNeill & Maruna, 2012).…”

Section: The Punitive Turn and Probationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mass probation: Toward a more robust theory of state variation in punishment

Phelps

2016

Punishment & Society

135

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scholarship on the expansion of the U.S. carceral state has primarily focused on imprisonment rates. Yet the majority of adults under formal criminal justice control are on probation, an “alternative” form of supervision. This article develops the concept of mass probation and builds a typology of state control regimes that theorizes both the scale and type of punishment states employ. Drawing on Bureau of Justice Statistics data from 1980 and 2010, I analyze whether mass probation developed in the same places, affecting the same demographic groups and driven by the same criminal justice trends, as mass imprisonment. The results show that mass probation was a unique state development, expanding in unusual places like Minnesota and Washington. The conclusions argue for a reimagining of the causes and consequences of the carceral state to incorporate the expansion of probation.

show abstract

Section: The Punitive Turn and Probationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mass probation: Toward a more robust theory of state variation in punishment

Phelps

2016

Punishment & Society

135

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Any defective products of the criminal justice system would be those of re-offending offenders and dissatisfied victims (Benard, Paoline, & Pare, 2005). Thus, the shared goals among professionals across components of the criminal justice as well as shared goals among administrative-level and line corrections personnel has the potential to improve reentry success (Bernard et al, 2005;DeMichele, 2014;Gibbs, 1970;Giblin, 2013;Kraska & Brent, 2011;National Research Council;.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Correctional Practitioners on Reentry: A Missed Perspective

Gunnison

Helfgott

Wilhelm

2015

JPER

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Much of the literature on reentry of formerly incarcerated individuals revolves around discussions of failures they incur during reintegration or the identification of needs and challenges that they have during reentry from the perspective of community corrections officers. The present research fills a gap in the reentry literature by examining the needs and challenges of formerly incarcerated individuals and what makes for reentry success from the perspective of correctional practitioners (i.e., wardens and non-wardens). The views of correctional practitioners are important to understand the level of organizational commitment to reentry and the ways in which social distance between correctional professionals and their clients may impact reentry success. This research reports on the results from an email survey distributed to a national sample of correctional officials listed in the American Correctional Association, 2012 Directory. Specifically, correctional officials were asked to report on needs and challenges facing formerly incarcerated individuals, define success, identify factors related to successful reentry, recount success stories, and report what could be done to assist them in successful outcomes. Housing and employment were raised by wardens and corrections officials as important needs for successful reentry. Corrections officials adopted organizational and systems perspectives in their responses and had differing opinions about social distance. Policy implications are presented. Elaine Gunnison is an Associate Professor in Criminal Justice at Seattle University. Her research specializations include offender reentry, corrections, criminology, and female offending. Jacqueline B. Helfgott is a Professor in Criminal Justice at Seattle University. Her research specializations include criminal behavior, psychopathy, corrections, offender reentry, victim impact in criminal justice decisionmaking, and restorative justice.Cecilie Wilhelm is an M.A. student at Seattle University. Her research interests are in offender reentry and harm reduction programming for offenders.

show abstract

“…For this reason, electronic monitoring in Europe is not a uniform sanction type, but there are signs of convergence. Specifically, Kalmthout and Durnescu's () review of European probation showed a general trend toward policies derived from the Anglo‐Saxon model, which emphasizes correction and control more than rehabilitation and social welfare (for a discussion of penal organizational isomorphism across contexts, see DeMichele, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hence, the increase in mass social control—mass imprisonment paralleled by mass probation, as observed in the United States (Phelps, )—is unprecedented in a Danish context. Also, the parallel trends of increased use of community supervisions and increased social control from the early 1980s onward in the United States (DeMichele, ) are not found in Denmark, at least not to the same degree, despite the recent emergence of “tough‐on‐crime” policies (for a general introduction to the Scandinavian penal justice systems, see Lappi‐Seppälä and Tonry, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Electronic Monitoring on Social Welfare Dependence

Andersen

2014

Criminology & Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research SummaryWe studied the effect on social welfare dependence of serving a sentence under electronic monitoring rather than in prison using Danish registry data and two policy shifts that extended the use of electronic monitoring in Denmark. We found that electronic monitoring is less harmful than imprisonment, at least for younger offenders, whereas it does not leave older offenders worse off than imprisonment. Policy ImplicationsAs the United States moves toward noncustodial alternatives to imprisonment, policy makers might benefit from knowledge on experiences from other contexts. The experiences from Denmark are clear: Electronic monitoring is less harmful than imprisonment to the life-course outcomes of offenders. Because electronic monitoring could be less costly for the corrections administrations than imprisonment, efforts to extend the use of electronic monitoring in the United States could be accelerated.

show abstract

Studying the community corrections field: Applying neo-institutional theories to a hidden element of mass social control

Cited by 28 publications

References 57 publications

Mass probation: Toward a more robust theory of state variation in punishment

Mass probation: Toward a more robust theory of state variation in punishment

Correctional Practitioners on Reentry: A Missed Perspective

Effect of Electronic Monitoring on Social Welfare Dependence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About