eight

Document8.docx

Home >Law homework help >Criminal homework help >eight

Discussion Chapter 7: How do local politics affect jail administration? Should political influence be as extensive as it is? Does it help or hinder good correctional practices?

Discussion Chapter 9: Should intermediate sanctions be run by traditional pronation and prison systems or by new agencies seeking to serve as alternatives to them?

7)IN CALIFORNIA A PERSON DOING

JAIL TIME CAN PAY TO UPGRADE

TO A BETTER JAIL CELL. For between $75 and $127

per day, the buyer can get a better room with the right to bring in a computer or iPad,

sometimes even a cell phone—and perhaps best of all, the private cell offers separation

from the “economy class.”

Wanting an upgrade is understandable. Many California jails are noisy and dirty,

and some have reputations of being dangerous. People who can afford to pay can’t be

blamed for wanting to avoid the worst of the state’s jails. In addition to better facilities,

these “five-star jails,” as they are known, also allow daytime furloughs so people can go

to work.

What makes the upgrade possible is that the special accommodations, which have

limited space, are offered by private profit-making companies that contract for jail space.

The company locks the person up and then shares some of the fee with the government.

The customer gets a pretty good deal: One private jail’s website brags that it provides a

“less intimidating environment” for people to serve their time.

It seems unfair. Two people convicted of the same crime may end up experiencing

very different punishment, all because one can afford to rent a better jail cell. But cities like the extra revenue, almost $2 million per year, which they claim they can use to

improve services for everybody.1

Pay-to-stay jails are an example of one of many anomalies about the jail. It is a correctional facility typically run by an elected law enforcement official, not a correctional

specialist. Jails, then, often become a local political issue. Indeed, jails are a strange correctional hybrid: part detention center for people awaiting trial, part penal institution for

people sentenced on misdemeanor charges, part refuge for social misfits taken off the

streets. Jails hold men, women, and juveniles who have been accused of violating the

law. Jails are the traditional dumping ground not only for people involved in traditional

criminal activities but also for petty hustlers, derelicts, drug addicts, prostitutes, people

with mental illnesses, and disturbers of the peace, mainly from the poorer sections of

cities. Thus, the jail’s functions include those of the workhouse of the past.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After reading this chapter, you

should be able to . . .

1 Describe the history

of the jail and its

current function in

the criminal justice

system.

2 Describe who is in

jail and why they are

there.

3 Discuss the kinds of

jails in the United

States.

4 List the main issues

facing jails today.

5 Outline the problem

of bail and list the

main alternatives to

bail.

6 Explain the

problems of jail

administration.

7 Describe new

developments in jails

and jail programs.

8 Critically assess the

future of the jail.

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).

Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

166 PART 2 Correctional Practices

Students interested in improving corrections during their future careers could find no

area that more obviously needs reform than U.S. jails. Among the institutions and programs

of the corrections system, jail is the one most neglected by scholars and officials and least

known to the public. Uniformly jam-packed and frequently brutalizing, jails almost never

enhance life. Many criminal justice researchers agree that of all correctional agencies, jails

are the oldest, most numerous, most criticized, and most stubbornly resistant to reform.

Jails are in such a state of decline that the estimated cost to bring them up to acceptable standards far exceeds what the nation can afford, at least in the foreseeable future.

Further, conditions in many jails are getting worse because people convicted of a felony

are held there while awaiting vacancies in overcrowded state prisons. Therefore, scholars,

administrators, policy makers, and elected officials agree that using jail as punishment

for breaking the law should be avoided whenever possible. Yet jail represents nearly all

Americans’ initial contact with corrections. For many people, this will be their only time in

a correctional institution, and the impression it leaves will greatly influence their views of

the criminal justice system.

With an estimated 10.9 million jail admissions per year, more people directly experience jails than experience prisons, mental hospitals, and halfway houses combined.2 Even

if we consider that some portion of this total is admitted more than once, probably at

least 7–8 million people are detained in a jail at some time during the year.

In this chapter we examine problems of operating jails and how some individuals avoid

pretrial detention. We also raise questions about the role of corrections in this type of facility, where too many people sit idle without access to treatment and rehabilitative programs.

The Contemporary Jail:

Entrance to the System

Jails are the entryway to corrections. They house both the people who are awaiting trial and

those who have been sentenced for a crime, usually serving one-year terms or less. People

appealing sentences are often held in jail as well, as are those awaiting transfer to other jurisdictions. Nationally, about 721,300 people

are under jail authority on any given day;

more than nine-tenths of them are behind

bars, with the remainder under some form

of community release.3

Some people argue that jails lie outside corrections. For one thing, they claim

that most of the nation’s 3,163 jails (operated in 2,872 jurisdictions)4 are really a

part of law enforcement because sheriffs

administer them. For another, they note

that people who have been sentenced make

up only about half of the jail population

and that people being held for trial, who

compose most of the other half, should

not fall within the scope of correctional

responsibility. Finally, they suggest that

because most jails have neither treatment

nor rehabilitative programs, they should be

excluded from corrections.

The jail experience can

be noisy, crowded, and

chaotic when compared

to prison life. ▼

ROBYN BECK/AFP/Getty Images

CHAPTER 7 Jails: Detention and Short-Term Incarceration 167

We believe that jails are an important part of corrections and demonstrate many complexities of the system. Administered by locally elected officials, jails are buffeted by the local politics

of taxation, party patronage, and law enforcement. Jail practices also affect probation, parole,

and prison policies.

Jails are perhaps the most frustrating component of corrections for people who want to provide treatment programs to people who have committed crimes. Of the enormous numbers of

people in jail, many need a helping hand. But the unceasing human flow usually does not allow

time for such help—nor are the resources available in most instances.

Origins and Evolution

Jails in the United States descend directly from feudal practices in twelfth-century England. At

that time, an officer of the crown, the reeve, was appointed in each shire (what we call a county)

to collect taxes, keep the peace, and operate the gaol (jail). The shire reeve (from which the word

sheriff evolved), among other duties, caught and held in custody people accused of breaking the

king’s law until a formal court hearing determined guilt or innocence. With the development of

the workhouse in the sixteenth century, the sheriff took on added responsibilities for vagrants

and the unemployed who were sent there. The sheriff made a living by collecting per diem fees

and by hiring out prison labor.

English settlers brought these traditions and institutions with them to the American colonies. After the Revolution, the local community elected law enforcement officials—particularly

sheriffs and constables—but the functions of the jail remained unchanged. Jails were used to

detain accused persons awaiting trial, as well as to shelter misfits who could not be taken care of

by their families, churches, or other groups.

The jails were often in the sheriffs’ homes and run like the sheriffs’ households. Residents

were free to dress as they wished and to contribute their own food and necessities: “So long as

they did not cost the town money, inmates could make living arrangements as pleasant and

homelike as they wished.” 5

Local revenues paid room and board for those who could not make

independent contributions.

In the 1800s the jail began to change in response to the penitentiary movement. Jails

retained their pretrial detention function but also became facilities for people serving short

terms, as well as housing vagrants, debtors, beggars, prostitutes, and those with mental illnesses. Although the fee system survived, other changes took place. The juvenile reformatory

movement and the creation of hospitals for the criminally insane during the latter part of the

nineteenth century siphoned off some former jail inhabitants. The development of probation

reduced reliance on jail, as did adult reformatories and state farms. However, even with these

innovations, most accused and convicted people were held in jail. This pattern has continued

into contemporary times.

Population Characteristics

Not until 1978 did the Bureau of the Census conduct a complete nationwide census of jails for

the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Repeated every five years by local officials, this census contains

information on jail population counts beyond arraignment (that is, usually more than 48 hours).

Excluded from the count are people in federal and state facilities. An annual survey of the top

one-third largest jails, which hold about 75 percent of imprisoned people, supplements these

five-year nationwide counts.

The most recent National Jail Census shows that about 85 percent are men, nearly twothirds are under 35 years old, almost half are white, and most have little education and a very

low income.6 The demographic characteristics of the jail population differ from those of the

national population in many ways: People in jail are younger and disproportionately African

American, and most are unmarried (see Figure 7.1).

As with prisons, jail populations vary from region to region and from state to state. The

proportion of a state’s population in jail, known as the jail rate, is high in the West and South

(see Figure 7.2). In many states where prisons are filled to capacity, people sentenced for felonies

sit in jails, awaiting transfer.

168 PART 2 Correctional Practices

Status Sex

Age Education

Race/Ethnicity

Male

85.7%

Probation or

parole revocation

Other

15%

Detained

awaiting court

28%

Convicted and

serving sentence

55%

African

American

35.1%

White

48.3%

Hispanic

14.3%

Other

2.2%

55 and older

2.2%

18–24

28.1%

25–34

35–44 31.9%

26.0%

45–54

10.0%

17 and younger

1.8%

8th grade or less

12.3%

Some

high school

31.6%

GED

17.1%

High

school

diiploma

25.9%

Some college

10.1%

College grad/more

2.9%

Female

14.3%

FIGURE 7.1 Characteristics of Adults in U.S. Jails

Compared with the U.S. population as a whole, jails are disproportionately inhabited by men, minorities, the poorly educated, and

those with low incomes.

Sources: Todd D. Minton and Zhen Zeng, Jail Inmates in 2015 (Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, December 2016); William J. Sabol and Todd D.

Minton, Jail Inmates at Midyear 2007 (Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, June 2008).

200–299

300– 400

0 –199

See note

Over 400

220

180

320

280

360

220

260

240

320

350 CO

290

270 NM

560

340

310

430

150

170

240

380

870

590

410

550

330

290

240

450

270 KY

570

TN 530

210

330

200

360

170 MI

210

270

MD 250

District Of

Columbia

450

220

160

170

190

FIGURE 7.2 People Incarcerated in Local Jails per 100,000 Population, by State

What accounts for the fact that incarceration rates in jails differ from state to state?

Note: Six states—Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont—have integrated jail–prison systems; therefore, information for these

states is not given.

Source: Todd D. Minton, Jail Inmates at Midyear 2012: Statistical Tables (Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2013).

CHAPTER 7 Jails: Detention and Short-Term Incarceration 169

One of the most troubling trends in jails is the rate of incarceration for African

Americans. Figure 7.3 shows the changes in these rates from 1990 to 2015; much of the

growth in jail population over the past decade has been caused by the huge increase in the

number of African Americans in jails. In 1990 the jail incarceration rate for African Americans was 560 per 100,000. By 2014, the rate had fallen to 600 per 100,000 after peaking at 820

per 100,000 in 2008—a 50% increase. The incarceration rate for white Americans has almost

doubled from 89 per 100,000 in 1990 to 175 per 100,000 in 2015. As we discuss in Chapter

19, the rate of incarceration for African Americans is now dropping relative to the white rate;

this trend applies to all of corrections, not just jails.

Administration

Of the 3,163 (city, county, or privately operated) jails in the United States, 80 percent have a

county-level jurisdiction, and most are administered by an elected sheriff. An additional 600

or so municipal jails are in operation. Only in six states—Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware,

Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont—are jails for adults administered by state government.7

There are also an estimated 13,500 police lockups (or drunk tanks) and similar holding

facilities authorized to detain people for up to 48 hours. The Federal Bureau of Prisons operates 12 jails for the detained only, holding 11,864 people. There are 39 privately operated

jails, under contract to state or local governments, and they house 5.3 percent of the total jail

population.8

Jails serve every part of the United States, but because much of the country is sparsely

populated, most jails have a rated capacity to hold fewer than 250 people. The 145 jails with a

rated capacity of 1,000 or more represent less than 5 percent of all jails, but they hold almost

50 percent of the nation’s daily jail population.9

The 10 largest U.S. jails hold 10 percent of the

total national jail population, but it would be a mistake to think that jails are predominantly

an urban concern. Small county jail populations have been growing at a much faster rate than

their urban counterparts. In 1970 small county jails held about one-fourth of the nation’s jail

population. Today they hold more than four-fifths of the total population.10 This shift has a lot

lockup A facility authorized

to hold people before court

appearances for up to 48 hours.

Most lockups (also called drunk

tanks or holding tanks) are

administered by local police

agencies.

Number of people in jail per 100,000 U.S. residents

Year

200

400

600

800

1990

Hispanic of any race

Black non-Hispanic

White non-Hispanic

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

100

300

500

700

900

2012 2014

FIGURE 7.3 Jail Incarceration Rates by Race and Ethnicity, 1990–2015

What can explain the phenomenal increase in the incarceration rate of African Americans?

Source: Todd D. Minton and Zhen Zeng, Jail Inmates in 2015 (Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2016).

170 PART 2 Correctional Practices

to do with new jail construction in small and medium-sized jurisdictions, largely as a result of

legal actions taken against substandard jails that needed to be replaced. (See “Jail Crowding”

later in the chapter.)

As facilities to detain accused people awaiting trial, jails customarily have been run by

law enforcement agencies. We might reasonably expect that the agency that arrests and transports people to court should also administer the facility that holds them. Typically, however, neither sheriffs nor deputies have much interest in corrections. They often think of

themselves as police officers and of the jail as merely an extension of their law enforcement

activities. In some major cities, municipal departments of correction, rather than the police,

manage the jails.

Many experts argue that jails have outgrown police administration. Jails no longer serve

simply as holding places but now represent one of the primary correctional facilities in the

criminal justice system. In fact, much correctional work is directed toward people housed in

jails. Probation officers conduct presentence investigations in jails, people who abuse alcohol

and drugs receive treatment in many facilities, and many hours of community service are performed by people confined in jails. Therefore, the effective administration of jails requires skills

in management and rehabilitation that are not generally included in law enforcement training.

This point was well made over 40 years ago by the U.S. President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice: “The basic police mission of apprehending offenders

usually leaves little time, commitment, or expertise for the development of rehabilitative programs, although notable exceptions demonstrate that jails can indeed be settings for correctional treatment.”11

Many jails still receive funds through a fee system, whereby the costs of housing, food,

and services are averaged, and a standard amount (say, $10 per day per person) is remitted to

the sheriff ’s department. This creates an incentive for poor jails to skimp on food, services, and

social support. Often the sheriff uses money saved on housing to augment the kinds of law

enforcement services that attract public support and are therefore helpful at the polls.

The Influence of Local Politics

Because of the close links between jail administration and local politics, fiscal pressures and

political conservatism greatly affect jails (see “For Critical Thinking”). Fiscally sound measures are often ignored because of political pressures. For example, pretrial release programs

are a cost-efficient and proven means of reducing institutional crowding, yet the public’s fear

of crime often makes the programs politically infeasible. Conversely, political pressures may

support expanded use of jail confinement for those who have been convicted of misdemeanors or who have violated probation (particularly when crime is a potent electoral issue), but

the funds to expand or upgrade the jail’s capacity

to handle these additional cases are often lacking.

The jail is a crime control service but also a drain

on revenues. The tension between these two public interests is often expressed in local debates over

capital expenditures for jail construction. Because

revenues are often insufficient, many jails are overcrowded and cannot house everyone who has been

sent to jail, so a portion end up being released or

placed in other facilities.

It is very hard to wrest control of local facilities away from a politically sensitive office such

as that of sheriff or police chief. Jail employees

constitute a large block of political patronage

for elected officials to distribute to political supporters. Political appointees spend most of their

time administering the jail, but during political campaigns they hustle votes and money for

their bosses. Even when jail employees are civil

fee system A system by which

jail operations are funded by a set

amount paid each day per person

held.

regional jail A facility operated

under a joint agreement between

two or more government units,

with a jail board drawn from

representatives of the participating

jurisdictions and having varying

authority over policy, budget,

operations, and personnel.

FOR CRITICAL THINKING

Everywhere in the United States, sheriffs have to run for office. That means they must convince voters they care about public safety

and other high-priority voter issues. But because many sheriffs also run

local jails, they are responsible for maintaining safe and effective facilities. Sometimes, jail safety and humaneness are not high priorities for

local voters. That means that the kinds of public policies that may attract

votes, such as “getting tough on people in jail,” may not contribute to

effective and humane conditions. In other words, there may be conflicts

between what it takes to get elected and what it takes to be a good jail

administrator.

1. Should the head of the jail be an elected official?

2. What are the advantages of electoral accountability for a person who

is a jail administrator? What are the disadvantages?

CHAPTER 7 Jails: Detention and Short-Term Incarceration 171

servants, political considerations can affect hiring and promotion. Because few politicians willingly surrender control

over such a potential political force as the jail, change is slow.

See “Careers in Corrections” for more about what it means to

work in a local jail.

Regional Jails

Most local jails are located away from major population centers, and many hold as few as 30 people. Although the state

may provide a portion of their operating funds, the smallest

jails lack essential services, such as medical care, that must be

provided no matter how few people may need them.

One recent trend designed to remedy these problems is

regionalization: the creation of combined municipal–county

or multicounty jails. This multi-jurisdictional or regional jail,

fiscally sound though it may be, has been slow to catch on

because it negatively affects several interest groups. Local political and correctional leaders do not want to give up their

autonomy or their control over patronage jobs, and reformers

often object to moving local residents to places that are sometimes far away from their communities. Citizens who oppose

having regional jails “in their backyard” make finding locations to build these jails difficult. Nevertheless, the number of

jail jurisdictions in the United States has actually dropped by

more than 6 percent since 1999.12

Nature of the Work

Most jails are operated by county governments, and threequarters of them are under the jurisdiction of an elected

sheriff. The approximately 150,000 correctional officers

in the jail system admit and process more than 7 million

people per year in either pretrial or sentenced categories.

Officers must supervise individuals during the postarrest

phase, when they may be most stressed, violent, and dangerous. The constant turnover of the jail population is an

additional problem in terms of maintaining security and

stability.

Required Qualifications

Candidates for employment must be at least 18 or 21 years

of age (the minimum age varies), be a U.S. citizen, have

a high school education, have no felony convictions, and

have some work experience. They must be in good health

and meet formal physical fitness, eyesight, and hearing standards. Some local departments provide training

for officers according to criteria set by the American Jail

Association. In some states, regional training academies

are available to local correctional agencies. On-the-job

training is a major resource for officer candidates.

Earnings and Job Outlook

Job opportunities for correctional officers employed in

county jails depend on local budgetary constraints even in

the face of increases in the jail population, but job growth

is expected to be about 9 percent during this decade. Salaries for entry-level correctional officers vary greatly, with

the highest being in the Northeast and the lowest in the

rural South. Median annual wages of correctional officers and jailers are $45,320. The middle 50 percent earn

between $32,960 and $55,720. The lowest 10 percent earn

less than $27,830, and the highest 10 percent earn more

than $73,060.

More Information

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov/oes

/current/oes333012.htm. For more information, see the

website of the Occupational Outlook Handbook and search

for “Correctional Officers.”

CAREERS in Corrections

Correctional Officer—Local Jails

▲ As a condition of his bail bond, John Wilson has to

surrender all 30 of the guns he owns to his bail bondsman

and cannot have any contact with his motorcycle group.

AP Images/Waco Tribune Herald/Rod Aydelotte

172 PART 2 Correctional Practices

Jimmy James sat in the back of the Mountain View police car,

his hands cuffed behind his back. He had never been arrested

before, and thoughts about jail tormented his mind. When

Jimmy saw news reports depicting the crowded conditions

and violence, he didn’t pay much attention. The trauma of

confinement was the furthest thing from his mind. Yet he

found trouble by downloading nude pictures from the Internet. Facts later revealed that the girls in the pictures were

underage, and Jimmy now faced felony charges for child

pornography.

The police officers drove in to a basement garage and

parked their vehicle. After one of the officers opened the

car’s rear door, Jimmy stepped out, his heart pounding. The

officer gripped Jimmy by the handcuff, making him feel as if

he were a dog on a leash. The officer guided Jimmy into an

elevator. When the door opened again, Jimmy saw the madness of the large King County Jail.

Jimmy’s legs shook as he walked into the jail’s administrative area. His first stop was booking. To his right were

prisoners packed in a series of open holding cages. The cages

resembled the dog pound, he thought, though instead of

yelping and barking dogs, Jimmy heard the blustering cacophony that came from scores of young, seemingly angry

men. He hoped the officers would not lock him inside with

the other prisoners.

As the jail staff took Jimmy into custody, the officers lost

interest in him. He was fingerprinted, positioned for his mug

shot, and then led toward the bullpens.

“Can I go into that one?” Jimmy gestured toward the

bullpen that held only three prisoners seated on a bench,

each of whom looked contrite.

“No can do,” the jailer said. “That’s the misdemeanor

tank. You’re in with the felons, Class A.”

The jailer unlocked the gate to the most crowded cage.

“Step inside,” the jailer ordered.

Jimmy hesitated, and the prisoners taunted him.

“Step inside, bitch,” he heard one prisoner yell. “Don’t get

scared now. What is it homey, you too good to be in here

with us?”

“Get in,” the jailer ordered.

Jimmy walked into the cage. Once the jailer locked the

gate behind him, Jimmy passed his cuffs through the bars

and the jailer freed his wrists. Then the jailer walked away,

leaving the prisoners to themselves.

The crowd of strangers frightened Jimmy. He was 21,

shorter than average height with a slender build. His sandcolored hair was thinning prematurely. He didn’t have anywhere to sit, so he walked toward the back of the cell and

leaned against the wall.

A larger prisoner stepped toward Jimmy. “What up,

big dog?”

Jimmy didn’t know how to respond. He nodded his

head.

“Where you from?”

Jimmy didn’t want to talk to anyone. He stood silent

against the wall, with hunched shoulders and bowed his

head toward the floor.

“I’m sayin’,” the aggressive prisoner persisted, “you

ain’t tryin’ to talk?”

Jimmy kept silent.

“Okay, okay,” the prisoner said. “I feel ya. But check dis

out. Wussup wit dat watch?”

Jimmy looked up, realizing his efforts at disappearing

were not working. “What do you mean?”

“I’m sayin’, wassup wit dat watch? You know some’nes

gonna take it up off you once you get to the block.”

“Why?”

“You’s in jail, fool. Straight gangstas up in here. Best let

me hold it for you. I’m a take care it, make sure you get it

back when your daddy post bail.”

Jimmy thought for a split second. He didn’t want any

problems. The watch wasn’t fancy, just a simple digital model

with an alarm. Knowing he probably wouldn’t see it again,

he unfastened the Velcro band and handed it over.

“Dat’s wassup, homey,” the prisoner strapped the prize

on his wrist. “I’m a take good care you up in here. What dey

got you up in here for, youngun?”

“Internet porn.”

“Internet porn. Wus dat?”

“Internet porn, you know, downloading nude pictures

from the web.”

“They be lockin’ mothafuckas up for dat?”

“Well, the models were underage.”

The prisoner smiled. “Oh, you be likin’ dem kids.”

“I didn’t know the models were underage.”

“Uh-huh. Was dey little girls or little boys?”

“They were young women. I’m not gay, you know.”

“Ain’t no one sayin’ you was gay. I’s just axin’, dat’s all.

But check dis out, youngun. When we gets up on da block,

don’t be talkin’ ’bout your case. Just stay close to me. I’m a

look out for ya.”

The jailer returned to the bullpen. He unlocked the gate

and called names to step out. Jimmy made his way through

the crowd, as did his unnamed protector. The jailer handed

the men a roll of dingy sheets, a threadbare blanket, and a

brown sack that held two pieces of white bread with bologna. The prisoners marched through the jail’s corridor, passing through various sliding gates until they reached a housing

FOCUS ON

PEOPLE IN CORRECTIONS: Jimmy’s First Day in Jail

CHAPTER 7 Jails: Detention and Short-Term Incarceration 173

Pretrial Detention

Imagine that you have been arrested by the police and accused of a crime. They have handcuffed

you, read you your rights, and taken you to the station for booking. Frightened, you have a hundred questions, but the police treat you as if your fears were irrelevant to their work. You may

be angry with yourself for what you have done. You may be frustrated that you cannot seem to

control the flow of procedure: fingerprints, mug shots, long waits while detectives and prosecutors discuss you without acknowledging your presence. Slowly you begin to understand that you

have acquired a new status: “accused offender.”

Then you are taken to the detention section of the jail. If it is an advanced facility, you are

placed in a holding room for an intake interview. There your situation is explained to you, you

are asked questions about your background that will help determine how best to manage you

while you are in jail, and you are told what you can expect next. If, however, you are in one of

many jails with no formal intake procedure, you are simply put in the holding tank. If you are

a man, several strangers likely will be in the cell with you, men whose stories you do not know

and whose behavior you cannot predict. If you are a woman, you probably will be by yourself.

In either case, once the guard leaves, you are on your own behind bars, and the full extent of

your situation begins to sink in. This can be an especially trying period for those people who are

thrust into a hostile and threatening environment.

In such circumstances, many people panic. In fact, the hours immediately following arrest

are often a time of crisis, stemming from the arrested person’s sense of vulnerability and hopelessness, fear of lost freedom, and sheer terror. Over one-third of the deaths that occur in jails

are suicides. Not surprisingly, most of these suicides happen within the first 6–10 hours after

lockup, and most psychotic episodes occur during or just after jail intake.

Other factors can exacerbate the crisis brought on by arrest and detention. Often the person

who has been arrested is intoxicated or on drugs, a state that may have contributed to the crime

for which the person is being held. Sometimes the criminal behavior stems from an emotional

instability that may worsen in detention. Especially for the young, the oppressive reality can

trigger debilitating depression.

Unquestionably, one of the most crucial times is the period immediately following arrest.

(See “Jimmy’s First Day in Jail.”) People differ in their need for help during this period. Those

under the influence of a mind-altering substance need time to overcome its effects; others need

to be left alone; still others need communication and advice. Jails lack the programmatic flexibility to accommodate the range of needs. However, the early confinement period also represents a

mental health opportunity because an individual in crisis is most likely to respond positively to

efforts of help. Unfortunately, the jail is not ordinarily well suited to provide aid in the first hours

of detention. Elaborate mental health measures are neither feasible nor necessarily required.

However, even simple human contact—conversation with correctional staff, involvement in

some activity, communication about what the person is likely to be experiencing—is frequently

enough to reduce many initial anxieties.

unit. “Grab a mat,” the jailer ordered, “and find yourself a

home on the floor.”

Jimmy couldn’t believe he would have to live in such

conditions. Sleeping mats were everywhere. A list on the

wall posted 30 names waiting for cell space. The bathrooms were open, lacking a modicum of privacy. A stench

of dried urine permeated the air. Noise from table games,

aggressive voices, and a television blasting rap songs

contributed to the frenetic energy in the housing unit.

He would go crazy if he had to stay in jail long, Jimmy

thought.

“Don’t even sweat it,” the larger prisoner said. “We

goin’ crash right here. I’m a look out for ya, youngun.”

Jimmy quivered. He sat on the mat that he had dropped,

held his knees, and waited, afraid for what might happen

next.

author.

174 PART 2 Correctional Practices

Special Problems of

People Held for Trial

Beyond the initial crisis of being arrested

and jailed, people who are detained for an

extended period often face serious problems.

The most significant are mental health problems, substance dependency, medical needs,

and legal problems. Because so many people

housed in jail have these problems, local

jails have often been referred to as the social

agency of last resort.

Yet it is not easy for a jail to meet the

needs of the people who are sent there. The

most important issue is turnover. The average stay in jail is less than a month, and that

makes coherent programming difficult to

carry out. In fact, for most jails, half of the

population turns over every week.13

Mental Health Problems Growing attention is being paid to the mental health of people in jail whose behavior, while not seriously criminal, is socially bizarre—those who are only

partially clothed, who speak gibberish or talk loudly to themselves, who make hostile gestures,

and so on. These people, whose behavior is unpredictable and to some extent uncontrollable,

were once transported to mental institutions, where they could be treated. But with the nationwide deinstitutionalization movement they have become outpatients of society, and they often

spend time in jail instead of receiving the psychiatric treatment they once might have received.

In fact, some people say jails have replaced mental institutions for dealing with serious mental illness. One study found that in every U.S. county that had both a jail and a mental health

hospital, the jail held more people with serious mental health issues than did the hospital.14

Almost two-thirds of those in jail have a history of mental problems; for one-fifth of people

in jails, there is a very recent history of serious mental disorder.15 (See Figure 7.4.) But many jails

do not offer any form of psychological care at all, and only a minority receive any form of mental

health treatment.

Observers say that the percentage of people in jail who are considered to have a mental illness is increasing. However, police have few alternatives to confinement for people who behave

oddly or self-destructively, even if they are basically just nuisances. Moreover, unstable people

often respond to the stress of jail with emotional outbursts and irrational behavior. Jails not only

draw from but also add to the ranks of the mentally disturbed.

Most jails lack resources to provide care for people with mental illnesses. Three-fourths of

all jails have no rehabilitative staff, and among the remainder the vast majority of rehabilitative

personnel lack training to deal with severe cases of mental and emotional stress, particularly

when threats of self-injury are involved.16 Consequently, people with mental illnesses often languish in jails, where they are abused by their peers, misunderstood by correctional workers, and

left untreated by professional personnel.

The news is not all bad, however; some positive steps have been taken to divert the mentally ill from jail. Many jails now screen new arrivals for mental health problems, with specially

trained counselors interviewing and evaluating people held for trial. Those with mental health

problems are usually referred to local social service agencies for treatment and may be diverted

from criminal prosecution in order for treatment to proceed.

Substance Dependency Nationally, half of all people placed in jail are under the influence of alcohol or an illegal drug at the time of arrest, and over two-thirds, more than 400,000,

have a history of substance abuse. More than half of those entering jail have a history of failed

drug treatment, often during previous jail or probation terms.17 In a study of four large cities,

60–85 percent of all people arrested tested positive for illicit substances at the time of arrest.18

▲ Corey Miller, a

community mental health

worker in Cuyahoga

County, Ohio, does an

assessment of a jail

inmate. Most jails do

not have services for the

incarcerated with mental

problems.

AP Images/The Plain Dealer/Dale Omori

CHAPTER 7 Jails: Detention and Short-Term Incarceration 175

Percent

39.6%

Major Depressive

or Mania Symptoms

Persistent sad, numb,

or empty mood

36.4%

Loss of interest or

pleasure in activities

17.5%

Psychotic Disorder

Symptoms

Delusions

Hallucinations 13.7%

42.8%

Increased or

decreased appetite

49.2% Insomnia or hypersomnia

46.2%

Psychomotor agitation

or retardation

43.0%

Feelings of worthlessness

or excessive guilt

34.1%

Diminished ability to

concentrate or think

12.9% Attempted suicide

49.4%

Persistent anger

or irritability

29.5%

Increased/decreased

interest in sexual activities

0 5 10 706560555045403530252015

Number of Major Depressive

Disorder Symptoms

Exhibited by People in Jail

Number of Mania

Disorder Symptoms

Exhibited by People in Jail

Number of Psychotic

Disorder Symptoms

Exhibited by People in Jail

None

22.8%

None

22.5%

None

1–2 76.0%

23.8%

3–4

23.0%

5 or more

30.4%

17.0%

7.2%

16.8%

20.1%

22.0%

18.4%

FIGURE 7.4 Percentage of People in Jail with Mental Health Symptoms in the Past 12 Months or Since Admission

People in jails exhibit a wide range of mental health problems.

Sources: BJS Special Report, September 2006, p. 2. Data are based on self-reports in the Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities, 2004,

and the Survey of Inmates in Local Jails, 2002.

The most dramatic problems posed by drug abuse occur during withdrawal, when the

addict’s body reacts to the loss of the substance on which it has grown dependent. Both alcoholics and drug addicts suffer withdrawal, but it is especially painful for the latter group and may

last as long as a week. Addicts may attempt suicide to escape the pains of withdrawal, and a

176 PART 2 Correctional Practices

higher percentage of drug addicts than nonaddicts succeed in the attempt. Early identification

of the drug addict is therefore a high priority in urban jails, for withdrawal symptoms can be

assuaged by methadone maintenance or release to an addiction treatment facility. Despite the

shortness of most stays in jail, treatment programs designed especially for jails have shown some

success. There is a great need for substance abuse treatment in jails, but less than one-fifth of

those who need such treatment receive it while there.19

Every jail regularly houses alcoholics, many of whom, during the initial hours of confinement, are physically sick, hallucinating, and paranoid. These symptoms tend to be viewed as

inconveniences rather than as conditions requiring treatment. Few jails provide any real form of

treatment, and treatment by outside agencies is often just as rare because agencies prefer voluntary clients.

Since the first detoxification center in the United States was established in St. Louis, in 1966,

the national trend has been toward treating public drunkenness as more of a medical than a

criminal problem. These detox centers are quasi-voluntary facilities for chronic alcoholics, many

of whom have no other place to go. The centers provide shelter, medical care, food, clothing, and

counseling for residents, most of whom are taken there by police.

Medical Needs People in jail have many medical needs, ranging from minor scrapes

and bruises sustained during arrest and booking to major injuries sustained during the

crime and its aftermath. To these injuries can be added the routine health deficiencies of

any lower-class citizen: infections, poor nutrition, lack of dental care, and so forth. Taken

together, more than one-third of those in jail report a physical ailment of some sort.20 Even

so, almost half of the nation’s jails do not screen routinely for infectious diseases, such as

tuberculosis.21

For the most part, citizens who end up in jail, on either charges or sentences, lack medical

insurance, so whatever medical care they receive is provided by the jail itself. Almost 60 percent

of America’s jails make people incarcerated there pay for at least some of the medical care they

receive; two-thirds of those require payment for all services. Forty percent provide the health

care through on-site staff or other government employees. Even in the jails that seek to address

health problems, services are problematic, and many residents have complained about the quality of care being offered.

Today, one of the more pressing medical issue in jails involves people with AIDS, estimated

at just over 1 percent of the national jailed population.22 About 1.6 percent of all jail deaths are

AIDS-related.23 As noted in Chapter 6, jail officials should be in a position to provide certain

treatments for people with HIV/AIDS, and all correctional workers should take standard health

precautions. The main problems have to do with staff training because many jail employees have

misconceptions about how the disease is spread. This can lead to mishandling of those who are

HIV-positive or AIDS-infected. The poor response to the HIV-positive in jails is exacerbated

by the fact that about nearly half of all jails do not routinely screen for the virus. Yet there is

good news as well. Nationally, HIV rates in jails are down markedly since 1996, dropping by

more than one-fourth, and AIDS as a cause of death during custody has also declined since that

time.24

Legal Needs People held for trial need access to legal assistance. In the emotionally

stressful postarrest period, they need information about what will happen prior to their trial.

They also need legal help in securing release through bail or diversion. If release is not possible, they must have help in preparing their case, negotiating with the prosecutor about

charges, or directing their attorney to people who may provide an alibi or exonerating evidence. Not surprisingly, research consistently shows that people held in jail until trial suffer

a disadvantage in preparing their defense. People in jail are likely to need a public defender,

an appointed counsel, or an attorney provided by contract. Unfortunately, because they must

process large numbers of cases for relatively small fees, criminal defense attorneys cannot

spend much time locating witnesses, conducting investigative interviews, and preparing

testimony. So for many people held for trial, these essential defense plans are only partially

pursued.

CHAPTER 7 Jails: Detention and Short-Term Incarceration 177

They can expect to spend long periods without seeing an attorney. In fact, most have

only one or two hurried conversations with their attorneys before they appear in court. To

add insult to injury, they are brought to court in shackles and jail-issue clothing, in dramatic

contrast to well-groomed people who have been able to remain free. Some of those held for

trial who were once employed have long since been fired. In short, they have relatively dim

prospects.

The Rights of People Detained for Trial Unlike people serving time, people

in this group have not been convicted of the crimes for which they are being held. Technically,

they are innocent, yet they are detained under some of the worst conditions of incarceration. In

the 1970s several courts reasoned that such people should suffer no more restrictions than are

necessary to ensure their presence at trial and that their legal protections should exceed those of

the sentenced.

However, in 1979 the U.S. Supreme Court overruled the lower courts by limiting pretrial

detainees’ rights. As discussed in Chapter 5, the Court in Bell v. Wolfish ruled that conditions

can be created to make certain that detained people are available for trial and that administrative

practices designed to manage jails and to maintain security and order are constitutional.25 The

justices said that restrictions other than those that ensure court appearance may legitimately be

imposed on people held for trial and that when jail security, discipline, and order are at stake,

they may be treated like others in jail.

Release from Detention

One of the most startling facts about U.S. jails is that more than half of their occupants are

awaiting trial. For many, this pretrial detention will last a long time: The average delay between

arrest and sentencing is more than six months. For those charged with a felony, the average

delay between arrest and adjudication is 111 days.26 In urban jails the wait is often longer

because of heavy court backlogs. Remarkably, despite the constitutional right to a speedy trial,

in some court systems people can expect to languish in jail for a year or more before their cases

come to trial.

The hardship of pretrial detention exerts pressure on accused people to waive their rights

and plead guilty. Further, it undermines their defense. And delay, often a useful defense tactic because it can weaken the prosecutor’s case, imposes a further penalty on the detained

person.

Small wonder, then, that recent years have seen a major emphasis on programs to enable

release for those awaiting trial. Rates of pretrial release have gradually grown from less than

50 percent in the early 1960s to nearly 90 percent in some of today’s largest urban areas.

(See “The District of Columbia Sets the Standard for Pretrial Justice.”) Nationally, the percentages of pretrial release ranged from 12 percent for people brought into federal courts for

immigration violations to 71 percent for people charged with property crimes. However, in the

nation’s largest counties, 62 percent of people awaiting trial on felony charges are released prior

to the disposition of their case, half of them within a day.27 Even so, the proportion of people in

jail who are there because they are awaiting trial has increased from about one-half to nearly

two-thirds in the last 10 years.28 Today, jail overcrowding is accelerating the development of new

mechanisms for pretrial release, one of the simplest ways to reduce a jail’s population. Innovative alternatives to the traditional bail system (covered in the next section) have enabled police

departments to sustain high volumes of arrests even when local jails are severely overcrowded

and under court order to reduce daily populations.

Paradoxically, jail crowding may have exacerbated the problem of pretrial populations. As

mentioned, the 1990s saw a trend of closing down old, dilapidated jails and replacing them with

newer, larger facilities. The proportion of jail population that is housed in large jails (with over

2,000 capacity) has almost doubled since 1993. Jail capacity has increased nationally by more

than one-third. Many of the new spaces, though, are taken not by people sentenced to jail but by

people being held for trial, with the proportion of those serving sentences remaining steady at

just over half.29

178 PART 2 Correctional Practices

The Bail Problem and Alternatives

When someone is arrested for a crime, the court seeks to ensure that he or she will appear at the

appointed time to face charges. Judges have traditionally responded to this need by requiring

that the person post bail, normally ranging from $1,000 to $25,000 (although higher amounts

may be required), to be forfeited if the accused individual fails to appear. See Figure 7.5 to see

the median bail amounts for people accused of a felony.

Dissatisfaction with the bail process stems from several factors. First, many people who

want to post bail—in some studies over 90 percent of those who are held for trial—are effectively

indigent and cannot afford bail. Second, money is a weak incentive for appearance in court in

many cases because the people who can afford bail are the ones most likely to appear at trial

without the threat of its forfeiture. Perhaps the most disquieting factor is that human freedom

can be had for a price. Imprisoning people merely because they are too poor to pay for their

release seems antithetical to our cultural ideals and our concept of justice. These are some of the

reasons that Federal Judge Lee H. Rosenthal declared the Harris County (Houston), Texas, bail

system “fundamentally unfair” to the poor and ordered the county to release people who were

accused of misdemeanors but were not able to post bail.30

To avoid the problems of bail, some jurisdictions have increased the use of citations and

summonses. For nonserious offenses, police can give the accused person a “ticket” specifying a

court appearance date and thus avoid having to take him or her into custody. Experiments with

this approach indicate that it effectively reduces demands for short-term detention space. See

Figure 7.6 for more on pretrial release.

bail An amount of money,

specified by a judge, to be posted

as a condition for pretrial release

to ensure appearance of the

accused individual at trial.

The hardships that happen when people are not released

from jail before their trial are well established: People lose

their jobs, families suffer breakups, people have trouble developing their defense against the charges, and the chances

of staying free of the justice system are diminished. Everyone agrees that for those who are accused of a crime, there

are major benefits to rapid release from jail. Despite these

statistics, the national picture is not encouraging: About half

of people who have been arrested stay there until trial, and

most of those who are released wait days and even weeks

before they get out. What makes this all the more tragic is

that what stands between most detained people and their

pretrial freedom is a handful of dollars—even small amounts

of bail are more than many individuals can afford.

What happens in our nation’s capital is a lesson in how the

national picture could be so much different. In the District of

Columbia, about 90 percent of the people arrested and sent to

jail are released by the court the next day. Even more remarkable, almost all of them are released without putting a penny

down for a bail bond. Instead, they promise to show up for

trial, and more than 90 percent do exactly that. Moreover, this

is not new; it has been going on for more than two decades.

“There is no evidence you need money to get people

back to court,” says D.C. Superior Court Judge Truman Morrison. “We’ve proven it can work without money.”

When the court determines that a person’s risk to the

community and risk of absconding are not high, the person

is offered conditional pretrial release. The conditions include

such precautions as reporting to a pretrial court officer, taking drug tests, and keeping a job. Some are put on electronic

monitoring. The court can tailor the exact conditions to create a plan that will keep a person safely on the streets, waiting for the trial date to arrive.

Of course the system is not perfect. There have been

high-profile cases of people released on this system committing heinous crimes, but these stories are rare enough that

the backlash has never threatened to end the system. People

who fail to abide by the conditions, or who are rearrested

before their trial date comes, can always be brought back

to jail.

Advocates are quick to point out that keeping a person

on conditional pretrial release costs less than one-tenth of

the cost of pretrial jail. But for most people, the money is

secondary. Running a system where people who have not yet

been convicted of a crime are not incarcerated seems simply fair and right. And the District of Columbia has proven

it works.

Source: Anne E. Martimow, “When It Comes to Pretrial Release, Few

Other Jurisdictions Do It DC’s Way,” Washington Post, July 6, 2016.

FOCUS ON

CORRECTIONAL POLICY: The District of Columbia Sets the Standard for Pretrial Justice

CHAPTER 7 Jails: Detention and Short-Term Incarceration 179

0 25

Bail amount (thousands of dollars)

Violent

offenses

Property

offenses

Drug

offenses

Public order

offenses

$25,000

$7,500

$10,000

5 10 15 20

FIGURE 7.5 Median Bail Amount for People Accused of Felonies, 2009

Most judges set low bail amounts for people facing felony charges, yet even these amounts are

hard for some people to raise.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties, 2009—Statistical Tables (Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 2013), 7.

Release on Recognizance

By far the most successful alternative approach allows people to be released solely on their

promise to appear at trial, a practice known as release on recognizance (ROR). ROR programs assume that ties to the community (residence, family, employment) give people an incentive to keep their promise to appear and to retain their status in the community.

People released on recognizance frequently have higher appearance rates than do people

freed through various bail programs; they also have lower rearrest rates and higher rates of sentences to probation rather than prison. ROR programs have demonstrated clearly that the vast

majority of accused people can be safely released into the community on their promise to return

for trial. Loss of bail is an unnecessary threat. The rate of willful failure to appear in most jurisdictions is normally less than 5 percent.

Despite the benefits of ROR, questions arise. Because ROR requires that people have ties

to the community, only a small number of individuals can usually participate. One national

analysis of ROR found that women are more likely than men to be released and that African

Americans are less likely to be released than whites, especially in the West and South.

release on recognizance

(ROR) Pretrial release option

used when the judge believes the

person’s ties in the community

are sufficient to guarantee his or

her appearance in court.

Bail bond

26.4%

Other

financial bond

11.6%

Conditional release

6.4%

Other

3.6%

Denied bail

4.0%

Held,

bail not made

33.7%

ROR

14.3%

FIGURE 7.6 Pretrial Release Outcomes

More than one-third of people facing charges are held in jail awaiting trial.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties, 2009—Statistical Tables (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 2013).

180 PART 2 Correctional Practices

Some jurisdictions have begun to experiment with

pretrial release under some form of supervision. Nationally, over 63,000 people are under some form of supervised release. Forty percent of these are supervised by

probation officers or other counselors or are under pretrial supervision, 7 percent attend day reporting centers,

22.6 percent perform community service (discussed

more fully in Chapter 9), and 22.4 percent are under

electronic monitoring.

Pretrial Diversion

As an alternative to adjudication, pretrial diversion began

with the belief that formally processing people through the

criminal justice system is not always beneficial. Each of the

three main reasons advanced in support of pretrial diversion

has provoked controversy:

1. Many of the crimes that result in going to jail are caused by special problems—vagrancy,

alcoholism, emotional distress—that cannot be managed effectively through the criminal

justice system.

2. The stigma attached to formal criminal labeling often works against rehabilitation and promotes an unnecessarily harsh penalty for a relatively minor offense.

3. Diversion is cheaper than criminal justice processing.

For the most part, correctional leaders agree that jails can do little for people who have mental, emotional, or alcohol-related problems. For such people, social programs are more suitable

than jails. There is less agreement about appropriate treatment for those whose problems are less

clearly beyond their own control—unemployed and unskilled youths, and multiple-drug users,

to name a few. Their marginal criminality may stem primarily from their disadvantaged status,

and their status can be seen as at least partly their own fault. Diversion from the criminal justice

system is controversial because to some critics it allows people to “get off easy.” Yet the rationale

for diverting them is attractive. The jail sanction does little to alter their disadvantaged status;

indeed, the stigma of a conviction often decreases their chances of becoming productive citizens.

A more enlightened policy would deflect them from criminal justice processes and instead put

them into reparations programs. That is, in fact, the precise aim of most pretrial diversion.

The mixed success of pretrial diversion programs highlights a persistent problem of criminal justice reform. Innovations designed to reduce the overall intrusiveness of the system, no

matter how well intentioned, often backfire and instead expand its capacity for social control.

The process, called “widening the net,” occurs when a new program is applied to people who

ordinarily would have gotten a less severe punishment; rather than diverting people from punishment, it increases the scope of corrections.

If pretrial diversion programs are to meet their objectives, they must be applied to people

who would otherwise be treated more harshly. This is not easy to accomplish because many

criminal justice system officials distrust programs that are more lenient or more oriented to

community service than are their current practices.

Conduct During Pretrial Release

People who are awaiting trial would seem to have a special incentive to behave well. If they show

up for court with a job and prospects for a good future, it will be harder for a judge to impose a

sentence of confinement. If they show they can adjust well to the community during the period

between the arrest and the trial, then the judge will likely take that into account when imposing

a sentence.

It may be surprising, then, that many people do not behave well during their period

of release before trial. While the vast majority—78 percent—of individuals on some form of

day reporting center

A facility where people under

pretrial release or with probation

violations can attend daylong

intervention and treatment

sessions.

electronic monitoring

Community supervision

technique, ordinarily combined

with home confinement, that uses

electronic devices to maintain

surveillance.

pretrial diversion An

alternative to adjudication

in which the accused person

agrees to conditions set by

the prosecutor (for example,

counseling or rehabilitation)

in exchange for withdrawal of

charges.

widening the net Increasing

the scope of corrections by

applying a diversion program to

people charged with offenses less

serious than those of the people

the program was originally

intended to serve.

▲ Bail bondsmen and

bounty hunters are a

troubling aspect of the

criminal justice system,

and reformers seek ways

to change the nature of

both roles.

AP Images/Intelligencer Journal/Blaine Shahan

CHAPTER 7 Jails: Detention and Short-Term Incarceration 181

pretrial release show up for every court hearing, more than one in five do not. These are called

absconders; unless there is some good reason that they missed the court date, a warrant is sent

out for their arrest, and they are considered fugitives. Nationally, nearly one-fourth of these fugitives (3 percent of all people accused of a crime) remain at large at least one year after they were

supposed to have had their trial.32

The failure to appear for trial is not the only form of misbehavior that happens when people

are released before trial. Almost one in five (16 percent) of all people released while awaiting

trial are rearrested before their trial date arrives, half of them for a felony.33 The high arrest

rate of these people represents a significant concern to those interested in jail reform, who may

wonder if some sort of supervision or treatment program would help keep these numbers down.

They also see that high rates of arrests for this population lead to questions about the effectiveness of the pretrial system.

Preventive Detention

Even as ROR and other prerelease programs have moved forward, the heightened public concern about misconduct by people who are released while awaiting trial has led to a political

movement to prevent pretrial release, especially release on bail. With preventive detention,

people who are regarded as dangerous or likely to commit crimes while awaiting trial are kept in

jail for society’s protection. In 1984 the Comprehensive Crime Control Act authorized the holding of an allegedly dangerous person without bail if the judge finds that no conditions of release

would ensure the individual’s appearance at trial and at the same time ensure the safety of the

community.

The notion of the need for protection from people accused of committing a crime has been

subjected to sustained analysis. Many scholars believe that holding in custody a person who has

not been convicted of a crime but who someone thinks might commit a crime violates the due

process provisions of the Constitution. Others argue that the practice is impractical and potentially nefarious. And as we have seen, fewer than one in five of all people who are released pending trial are arrested for another crime before trial, and many of those are not convicted of the

new crime. One analysis of more than 100,000 pretrial releases found that judges often detain

the wrong people; overall, judicial authorities could use simple risk assessment devices to release

25 percent more people without increasing the amount of violent crime.34

Political pressure to incorporate the public’s safety concerns into release decisions has

become so strong that well over half of the states have laws allowing preventive detention. The

U.S. Supreme Court approved preventive-detention practices in Schall v. Martin (1984) and

United States v. Salerno (1987).35

People Sentenced to Jail

People who have been sentenced to jail by the court present special difficulties for the correctional administrator, mainly because of the short duration of the term and the limitations of the

jail’s physical plant. By definition, jail terms are shorter than prison terms—typically 30–90 days

for a misdemeanor. People convicted of a felony commonly serve from six months to a year,

and on some occasions (those convicted of sexual assault or robbery, for example) they will

serve two years or more.36 (See “Myths in Corrections.”) In many cases the sentence ultimately

imposed is “time served” because the judge believes that the time already spent in pretrial detention—when by law the person was presumed innocent—is sufficient, or more than sufficient,

punishment for the offense committed. The real punishment is not the sentence but rather the

impact of the unpleasant, costly, and harmful conditions of life behind bars from arrest up to

case disposition. In short, the process is the punishment.

Of those sentenced to additional jail time, people convicted of misdemeanors constitute the

forgotten component of local criminal justice operations. Over half are under criminal justice system supervision at the time of their arrest: probation, parole, or pretrial release. Nearly three-quarters have previously been sentenced to probation or confinement (see “Thinking Outside the Box”).

absconders People who fail

to appear for a court date for no

legitimate reason.

preventive detention

Detention of an accused person

in jail to protect the community

from crimes that he or she is

considered likely to commit if set

free pending trial.

Jails Are for People Convicted of Misdemeanors

THE MYTH: Jail sentences

are more common for people

convicted of misdemeanors than

they are for people convicted of

felonies.

THE REALITY: Nearly 40 percent

of people accused of committing

a felony are eventually sentenced

to jail, a rate that is almost the

same as prison sentences for

misdemeanors.

Source: Brian A. Reaves, Felony Defendants

in Large Urban Counties, 2009—Statistical

Tables (Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of

Justice Statistics, 2013), 28.

MYTHS in Corrections

182 PART 2 Correctional Practices

They also have a range of treatment needs. More than four-fifths

have a history of illegal drug use; 29 percent are unemployed,

and of the employed, 40 percent earn less than $1,000 per month.

More than one-third have experienced a serious physical injury,

and almost one-fifth have been abused.37 Most have not graduated from high school, and many are illiterate, yet educational

programming is unlikely to yield results in such a short time,

especially with adults.

Their short terms make treatment difficult. For example,

people in jail can rarely earn a high school equivalency diploma

in one or two months, and prospects for continued education

after release are dim. Similar impracticalities are inherent in

job-training programs, which may require 25–30 weeks to complete. In addition, job-placement prospects are spotty for people with jail records, many of whom do not have the help of a

parole or probation officer in looking for work. Treatment programs for the mentally ill, the emotionally disturbed, and alcoholics and drug addicts suffer from the same time constraints.

The jail facility also limits program opportunities. Jobs

within the institution are few, and most people have a lot of

idle time. Those assigned to work details find the labor menial

and monotonous: janitorial, kitchen, and laundry tasks. Still,

they are lucky. The vast majority simply languish in small cells.

Recreational options may consist of a small library of donated

books, some table tennis facilities, and a few card tables; few

jails have basketball courts, weight rooms, and the like. Whatever the resources, recreational

time is carefully rationed. Contact with friends and relatives is the only thing that sustains many

people in jail, but visiting hours are often limited to a few minutes each week.

In sum, with isolated exceptions, jail time is the worst kind of time to serve as a correctional

client. For corrections, jail is an expensive and largely ineffective proposition—a revolving door

that leads nowhere.

To ameliorate these problems, reformers have begun to emphasize the importance of carefully planned and supported reentry programs. Jail administrators are to begin preparing for a

sentenced person’s release from the first day of confinement,38 and partnerships with community supervision agencies are encouraged in order to provide more support for the person who is

returning to the community from the jail.39

THINKING

OUTSIDE

THE BOX

JAILS’ FREQUENT FLYERS

Anyone who works at a jail will attest that a small number

of people cycle in and out many times in a short period of

time. Sometimes called “frequent flyers,” these people have

almost never committed serious crimes, and they rarely pose

a risk to the community. They are disruptive people: often

intoxicated, often on the streets with no place to go. For

example, in New York City, up to 60 percent of people who

are homeless are rearrested within a year of being released

from jail.

This problem has led some experts to propose what

they call “frequent flyer programs.” These approaches begin

with research—just who are the people who enter and leave

jails so often, sometimes dozens of time in a year? Then the

research must be assessed—what are the problems underlying a person’s going to jail so frequently? The ultimate goal

of this research is to prescribe a strategy or program that will

deal with those problems and help keep the person out of jail.

What kind of treatment do you think such a program

would prescribe? What results might you expect? How much

should social science research be able to tailor individual

sentences?

Sources: Craig Davis, “How Police and Mental Health Professionals Work

Together in Framingham,” Metro West Daily News, October 28, 2012;

Richard R. Peterson, “Re-arrests of Homeless Defendants in New York

City,” Criminal Justice Agency Research in Brief 39 (February 2016).

▲ Families often

spend long periods just

waiting . . . waiting . . .

waiting, to see their

loved ones in jail.

AP Images/The Bismarck Tribune/Tom Stromme

CHAPTER 7 Jails: Detention and Short-Term Incarceration 183

Issues in Jail Management

U.S. jails are faced with numerous problems, many of them age-old: lack of programs, poor

financial resources, antiquated facilities, and so on. Here we discuss five of the most important

issues related to jail: legal liability, jail standards, personnel matters, jail crowding, and the jail

facility itself.

Legal Liability

As discussed in Chapter 5, jail employees may be legally liable for their actions (42 U.S.C. 1983).

Whenever a government official (such as a correctional officer) uses his or her authority to

deprive a citizen of civil rights, the victim can sue the official to halt the violation and to collect

damages (both actual and punitive) and recoup legal costs. Supervisors, including wardens, can

also be liable for the actions of staff members—even if they were not aware of those actions—if

it can be shown that they should have been aware. A lack of funds does not excuse an administrator from liability for failing to train staff sufficiently or to provide basic, constitutionally

required custodial arrangements. Local governments that administer the jails are also liable for

injurious conduct.

Many people believe that court decisions awarding civil judgments under Section 1983 are

an open invitation to sue, and the frequency of suits filed by people in prison has certainly

increased. Just about every conceivable aspect of the conditions of incarceration has been litigated, from hours of recreation to quality of food. The most successful suits have been those

showing that an employee’s action has contributed to harming someone. But jail conditions

have also been the subject of suits, especially when substandard safety mechanisms result in

injury or death.

The threat of litigation has forced jails to develop basic humane practices for management.

Civil damages and legal fees of more than $1 million have been awarded often enough to draw

the attention of sheriffs, jail managers, and local government officials. Budgets for jails have

been increased to reflect the additional costs of developing training programs, classification procedures, and managerial policies to prevent actions leading to liability suits.

Jail Standards

One of the best ways to reduce litigation is to develop specific standards for the practices and

procedures that routine jail operations entail. Standards are important for at least three reasons.

First, they indicate proactive criteria for jail management, which help eliminate the “Monday

morning quarterback” (rehashed in hindsight) aspect of much litigation. If jails are following

standard procedures, they cannot be held as accountable as they otherwise would for problems

experienced during incarceration. Second, standards provide a basis by which administrators

can evaluate staff performance: They need merely determine whether staff are complying with

operational standards. Third, standards aid the planning and evaluation of jail programs by giving program managers a target to consider in their work.

Even so, authorities are uncertain about the best way to design and implement jail standards. Some experts argue that standards should be binding. Generally, this means that an oversight agency visits each jail in the state and determines whether its programs are consistent with

the standards. Jails that fail to comply with standards are given a deadline by which to meet

them. If they do not, they may be fined—or even closed down.

Other experts argue that because jails differ so much in size and needs and because so many

of them suffer from underfunding and inadequate facilities, holding all jails accountable for

meeting the same inflexible set of standards is unreasonable. These experts push for voluntary

guidelines by which program goals for jail operations would be set by groups such as the American Correctional Association and monitored by teams of professionals.

The bottom line is that if jail administrators do not implement standard practices, the courts

will intervene. Even new jails are not immune to this problem. In the late 1980s, jails commonly

MORIAH SHOCK INCARCERATION

FACILITY, LOCATED IN THE

BUCOLIC SETTING OF THE

ADIRONDACK MOUNTAINS IN

UPSTATE NEW YORK, is a correctional dinosaur. It is a

prison “boot camp,” and people who serve their sentences there wear military fatigues,

doing predawn training routines of sit-ups and push-ups under the harsh eye and barked

commands of a uniformed drill instructor. The place feels like a military training camp:

shaved heads, platoons in marching drills, poetic cadences for almost every activity,

early lights-out. The people here seem enthusiastic about the strictness and the arduous

physical routine. As Drill Captain Bruce Rawson declares, “It instills discipline.”

But Moriah is part of a dying breed. In the 1990s, correctional “boot camps” were

all the rage. Acclaimed as a way of saving money and souls at the same time, and having

the enthusiastic endorsement of President Bill Clinton, boot camp prisons were opened

in almost every state in the country. Politicians loved them.

Then the evaluations started rolling in. Boot camp graduates did no better upon

release than people who went to regular prison. Boot camps didn’t save money. And

there were scandals, with some boot camps brutalizing the young men sent there to do

their time. Experts in corrections derided them as “correctional quackery.”

Soon enough, states started closing them down; the federal system closed its last

boot camp prison more than a decade ago. Moriah has its proponents, but they now

keep a low profile, claiming to be effective but without the kind of credible evidence that

policy makers have come to expect.1

The boot camp story illustrates two facets in the energetic national conversation

about “intermediate sanctions.” First, the costliness of the U.S. prison system has motivated policy makers to consider a wide range of alternatives to the traditional prison.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After reading this chapter, you

should be able to . . .

1 Explain the rationale

for nonincarceration

penalties.

2 Explain the rationale

for intermediate

sanctions.

3 Illustrate the

continuumof-sanctions concept.

4 Describe some of the

problems associated

with intermediate

sanctions.

5 List the various types

of intermediate

sanctions and who

administers them.

6 Explain what it takes

to make intermediate

sanctions work.

7 Assess the role of

the new correctional

professional.

8 Explain how

community

corrections legislation

works and evaluate

its effectiveness.

9 Assess the future

of probation, intermediate sanctions,

and community

corrections.

230 PART 2 Correctional Practices

Second, we need to base these alternatives on evidence that they work, not just a whim.

In other words, isn’t there some way of punishing people who break the law but are not

dangerous, a way that is less costly than prison and maybe more effective?

Intermediate Sanctions

in Corrections

Prison is expensive, no doubt about it. More than $80 billion is spent on corrections each year.2

Over 90 percent of that goes to pay for incarceration, even though more than two-thirds of people under correctional authority are under community supervision. A year behind bars costs

25 to 50 times as much as a year on probation. In many states the correctional budget exceeds

the higher-education budget. Years of growth in prison expenditures have often been matched

by an equivalent drop in education dollars.

More and more, policy makers look at the prison budget and wonder if there is a less expensive way to carry out punishments. Especially in times when state-level revenues are tight and

governors face the possibility of having to cut popular health and education programs, prison

costs come under scrutiny.

Undeniably, prison is more expensive than probation because it provides total control over

a person’s life in a way probation cannot. For this reason, people who want to save money by

doing something less expensive than prison have been uneasy with probation as the only alternative. As Norval Morris and Michael Tonry have noted, “Prison is used excessively; probation

is used even more excessively; between the two is a near vacuum of purposive and enforced

punishments.”3

Judges know that prison is often too much and probation is just as often not enough. For

first-timers convicted of nonviolent crimes who have solid links to the community such as a

good job, judges generally feel comfortable with a probation term. But the truly first-time, nonviolent felony case is unusual. Much more commonly, a felony conviction is not the person’s first

crime. Too often, probation or some other sanction has been tried before, and the person has

ended up in trouble again.

Just as often, the crime is serious but not alarming. For instance, the person was caught once again

using drugs (or was implicated in another theft or was caught with an illegal handgun or got drunk

and got in a fight). What good would another term of probation do? What message would it send?

Yet just as clearly, a prison term makes little sense. The 30 months or so of a typical sentence

will require $50,000 or more from the taxpayer; this seems expensive in view of the minor costs

of the crime itself.4

Further, people who go to prison do not have better prospects of making it

than do people who remain in the community.

There are other considerations. Most people accused of a crime have dependents—a spouse

and/or children—and what will happen to them when the person goes to prison? Many studies

have shown that children and families suffer many hardships, ranging from financial to psychological, when a loved one is incarcerated.5 One of those hardships costs everyone in the long

run: In the United States, children of people who go to prison are more likely than others to end

up in trouble with the law and eventually land in prison themselves.

And what about the victims? They always seem to want the toughest penalty the law

provides, but getting the judge to choose a prison sentence will gain little for the victim.

Too many victims leave court feeling alienated from justice, whatever the sentence. Further,

they all face the uphill battle of recovering from the emotional and practical costs of crime, a

battle that the sentence does little to help. At least people on probation can be ordered to pay

restitution. With probation officers’ caseloads often 100 or more, what can one realistically

expect?

Finally, many types of nonprison sentences seem to lead to lower recidivism rates. Perhaps

going to prison makes people less likely to obey the law, or staying in the community makes

adjustment to a law-abiding life easier. But if the idea is to help people turn their lives around, in

most cases the judge has far better choices than sending them to prison.

CHAPTER 9 Intermediate Sanctions and Community Corrections 231

For all of these reasons, our society benefits from choices that fall between probation and

prison—intermediate sanctions that are more exacting than probation but less costly and with

fewer collateral consequences than prison. In this chapter we present and analyze nonprobation

programs designed to keep people who have been convicted of crimes in local community corrections instead of prisons.

The Case for Intermediate

Sanctions

The enormous cost of incarceration is a powerful practical argument for community-based

alternatives. But there are other reasons that we need a range of correctional strategies between

probation and imprisonment, including these: (1) imprisonment is too restrictive, (2) traditional probation does not work, and (3) justice is well served by having options in between. In

the following sections we explore these arguments in more detail.

Unnecessary Imprisonment

Americans have traditionally tended to equate prison with punishment. When someone is sentenced to something other than prison, many people suspect that the person “got off ”; similarly,

a person who receives a short prison sentence is thought to have “gotten a break.” Yet to treat

prison as the primary means of punishment is wrong on two grounds.

First, most sanctions in Western democracies do not involve imprisonment. In the United

States, probation is the most common sanction: For every person in prison or jail, three are on

probation or parole. In Europe this is even more evident. For example, Germany imposes fines

as a sole sanction on two-thirds of those convicted of property crimes; in England the figure

approaches half. Community service is the preferred sanction for property crimes in England.

Further, Sweden, the Netherlands, France, Austria—and virtually every other European Common

▲ Judge jennie Barkey hands a certificate to U.S. Army veteran Shane Millay, 34,

as he graduates from veterans' treatment court. Specialized courts such as this one

have become quite popular. Advocates say they improve on justice, but detractors

say they make it harder for regular courts to function effectively.

AP Images/The Flint Journal/Jake May

232 PART 2 Correctional Practices

Market country—use such sanctions far more than incarceration. Because nonprison sanctions

are a worldwide phenomenon, it makes little sense to think of them as lack of punishment.

Second, prison is simply not effective in most cases. We expect prison to deter someone

from a life of crime, but evidence speaks to the contrary. A host of recent studies now show

that people who go to prison do worse after their release than they would have done under a

sentence to a community penalty.6

Along these lines, public sentiment about nonprison punishment appears to be changing. A recent national survey sponsored by the Pew Charitable Trusts

found strong public support for reducing the prison population (see Figure 9.1).

If prison is neither the most common nor the most effective sanction, why does it dominate

our thinking on punishment? Perhaps it is time to recognize that corrections can and should

develop nonincarcerative sanctions that fill the gap between prison and probation.

Limitations of Probation

As we mentioned in Chapter 8, probation may not work with everyone. Because many probation officers handle 100 or more cases at a time, the average person on probation gets maybe

15 minutes of contact per week—hardly meaningful supervision. Further, in many cases this

supervision does not really address problems that matter. The probation officer may check the

person’s pay stubs and test for drug use. But in the limited time available, little may happen to

help the person achieve a change in lifestyle.

Intermediate sanctions can improve traditional probation supervision in two ways. First,

they can intensify supervision. Second, they can provide specialized programs better suited to

more-important needs.

Improvements in Justice

Judges sometimes complain that their sentencing choices are limited. They face the need

to sentence people whose cases do not warrant prison but for whom probation seems inadequate. Developing an array of sanctions between these two extremes lets judges better match

Some of the money that we are

spending on locking up low-risk,

nonviolent inmates should be shifted to

strengthening community corrections

programs such as probation and parole.

26%

58%

People who commit crimes belong

behind bars, end of story. It may cost

a lot of money to run prisons, but it

would cost society more in the long run

if more criminals were on the street.

15%

One out of every 100 American adults

is in prison. That’s too many, and

it costs too much. There are more

effective, less expensive alternatives

to prison for nonviolent offenders,

and expanding those alternatives is

the best way to reduce the crime rate.

19%

50%

Strongly agree

20 40 60 80 100

Percent

Agree

10%

FIGURE 9.1 Public Opinion About Punishment

A majority of Americans approve of intermediate sanctions for most kinds of nonviolent crimes.

Source: Pew Center for the States, Public Opinion on Sentencing and Corrections Policy in America (Washington,

DC: Author, 2012).

CHAPTER 9 Intermediate Sanctions and Community Corrections 233

the sentence to the crime. Similarly, when supervision conditions are broken, some response

is needed to maintain the credibility of the rules. However, sending the violator to prison for

behavior that is not otherwise criminal seems unwarranted.

Finally, intermediate sanctions allow a closer tailoring of the punishment to the situation.

Sometimes, a fine is adequate punishment. Other situations may call for a drug treatment program. In still other cases, a period of home confinement will be sufficient. In sum, intermediate

sanctions, tailored to fit the specific circumstances, may provide the greatest justice. This may be

one reason why public opinion surveys so consistently find support for intermediate sanctions

as alternatives to prison and traditional probation.

Continuum of Sanctions

Intermediate sanctions fit the concept of the continuum of sanctions—a range of

punishments that vary in intrusiveness and control, as shown in Figure 9.2. Probation plus a fine

or community service may be appropriate for minor offenses, whereas six weeks of boot camp

followed by intensive probation supervision may be right for serious crimes.

The continuum-of-sanctions concept also incorporates a range of correctional management

strategies that vary in intrusiveness and control. Clients are initially assigned to a level of control, depending on the seriousness of their offense and their prior record. They may then move

to a less or a more restrictive level, depending on how well they do at each level. For example,

a person might start with a 7:00 p.m. curfew, a community service obligation, and mandatory

treatment programs on the weekends. If those restrictions are satisfactorily met for six months,

the person might have the curfew rescinded.

Many jurisdictions have developed a continuum of sanctions, and its advantages now seem

plain. First, it increases the corrections system’s flexibility. As jails and prisons become more

crowded, some clients can be moved to less restrictive options, such as work release programs.

Second, it allows more-responsive management of individuals. Thus, if a person on regular probation is not reporting, a brief home confinement can be followed by a return to probation.

Finally, it costs less than other alternatives.

Both state and county agencies can benefit from using a continuum of sanctions. Further,

this approach can be either codified into law or operated as a practice agreed to by the various

correctional agencies. For instance, in Maricopa County, Arizona, the combined resources of

multiple agencies—the jail, treatment centers, and probation—are used to develop the punishment system along a continuum of sanctions. This meets the same aims as the state of Delaware’s

sentencing accountability system, but it is neither a part of penal law nor operated by a single

state agency.

continuum of sanctions A

graded range of correctional

management strategies based

on the degree of intrusiveness

and control, along which a client

is moved based on his or her

response to those correctional

programs.

LOW CONTROL

HIGH CONTROL

Intensive

probation

supervision

Boot

camp

Shock

incarceration Jail

Fines or

restitution

Community

service

Drug, alcohol

treatment

Home

confinement Probation

FIGURE 9.2 Continuum of Sanctions

Judges may use a range of intermediate sanctions, from those exerting a low level of control to

those exerting a high level.

234 PART 2 Correctional Practices

Problems with Intermediate

Sanctions

Despite the growing range of available alternatives to incarceration and parole, all is not well

with the intermediate sanctions movement. Problems arise in selecting which agencies will

operate the process and which people will receive the sanctions. Further, intermediate sanctions

often inappropriately “widen the net.”

Selecting Agencies

Administrators of such traditional correctional agencies as jails, prisons, probation, and parole

often argue that they should also administer intermediate sanctions. They claim to have the

staff and the experience to design new programs for special subgroups, and they suggest that to

maintain program coherence, they ought to operate all correctional processes. Critics counter

that because traditional correctional organizations must give the highest priority to traditional

operations, they cannot adequately support midrange alternatives. Therefore, new agencies,

both public and private, should run intermediate programs. Others believe that intermediate

sanctions programs will inevitably be controlled by the probation and prison systems—

especially because these systems need intermediate sanctions to resolve swollen caseloads and

overcrowded facilities.

Selecting People

A second issue has to do with selecting appropriate people for alternative programs. One school

of thought emphasizes selection by seriousness of crime; the other concentrates on the client’s

problems. A focus on the offense usually eliminates some crime categories from consideration.

Many argue that violent or drug-marketing offenses are so abhorrent that a nonincarcerative

program is not appropriate. Yet often these are the people best able to adjust to these programs.

Moreover, to the degree that these programs are needed to reduce prison overcrowding, they

must include some serious cases.

In practice, both the crime and the client are considered. Certain offenses are so serious

that the public will not tolerate intermediate punishments for them (even though there are many

instances of successful community-based control of people convicted of murder and other serious crimes). At the same time, judges want programs to respond to the needs of the people they

sentence.

Underlying this issue is the thorny problem of stakes. Most of us would be willing to bet

$1 on a 1-in-10 chance of winning $10, yet few of us would be willing to bet $1,000 on a 1-in-10

chance of winning $10,000. The odds are the same, but we stand to lose so much more in the

second case. Similarly, intermediate sanctions programs are often unwilling to accept people convicted of serious crimes, particularly violent crimes, even though the chances of them successfully

completing a program may be quite good. If one of them commits a new serious crime, the damage to the community and—through negative publicity—to the corrections system can be substantial. With some high-profile cases, the stakes are simply too high, regardless of the amount of risk.

Widening the Net

A third major problem with selecting people for intermediate sanctions is widening the net

(see Chapter 7). In some ways this problem is potentially the most damaging because it strikes

at the very core of the intermediate sanctions concept. Critics argue that instead of reducing the

control over people’s lives, the new programs have actually increased it. You can readily see how

this might occur. With the existence of an alternative at each possible point in the system, the

decision maker can select a more intrusive option than ordinarily would have been imposed.

For instance, community service can be added to probation; shock incarceration can be added

to a straight probation term.

stakes The potential losses to

victims and to the system when

someone recidivates; stakes

include injury from violent crimes

and public pressure resulting

from negative publicity.

CHAPTER 9 Intermediate Sanctions and Community Corrections 235

Available evidence reveals that implementing intermediate sanctions has had three

consequences:

1. Wider nets: The reforms increase the proportion of people in society whose behavior is regulated or controlled by the state.

2. Stronger nets: By intensifying the state’s intervention powers, the reforms augment the state’s

capacity to control people.

3. Different nets: The reforms create new jurisdictional authority or transfer it from one agency

or control system to another.

Varieties of Intermediate Sanctions

How the various sanctions programs relate to one another depends on the jurisdiction running them. For example, one county may use intensive supervision in lieu of a jail sentence;

another may use it for probation violators. We have organized our description of the main types

of intermediate sanctions according to which agencies administer them—the judiciary, probation departments, or correctional departments.

Sanctions Administered by the Judiciary

The demand for intermediate sanctions often comes from judges dissatisfied with their sentencing options. In courts that have managerial authority over probation, this discontent has

translated into new probation programs. Other courts have sought to expand their sentencing options by relying more on programs within their control, such as pretrial diversion, fines,

forfeiture, community service, and restitution. These programs aim primarily at reducing trial

caseloads, especially focusing on less serious cases that need not tie up the court system. The

programs also seek to impose meaningful sanctions without incarceration.

Pretrial Diversion The functions of pretrial diversion, especially as a jail alternative, are

examined in Chapter 7. Because courts have extremely broad discretion in the pretrial phase of

adjudication, some have sought to apply this discretion to a greater range of cases.

Pretrial-diversion programs typically target petty drug crime. A new strategy in Wayne

County (Detroit), Michigan, exemplifies this practice. People arrested for first-time drug possession are “fast-tracked” into drug treatment programs within hours of arrest. They are promised that if they successfully complete the drug treatment program, the charges against them will

be dropped. This kind of treatment-based diversion program depends on cooperation between

the court and the prosecution. Judges indicate their willingness to delay trial if prosecutors are

willing to drop charges after the person has demonstrated a change in lifestyle. See “Myths in

Corrections” for more about drug treatment as diversion.

Fines Over $1 billion in fines is collected annually in the United States. Yet, compared with

other Western democracies, the United States makes little use of fines as the sole punishment for

crimes more serious than motor vehicle violations; the latest national data available show that

about 1 percent of people convicted of a felony receive a fine as the sole penalty.7

Instead, fines

are typically used with other sanctions, such as probation and incarceration. For example, it is

not unusual for a judge to impose two years’ probation and a $500 fine.

Many judges cite the difficulty of enforcing and collecting fines as the reason they do not

make greater use of this punishment. They note that the people handled by the court system

tend to be poor, and many judges fear that fines would end up being paid from the proceeds of

additional illegal acts. Indeed, there is evidence that the imposition of a fine can lead to higher

rates of rearrest.8

Other judges are concerned that relying on fines as an alternative to incarceration would let the more affluent “buy” their way out of jail while forcing the poor to serve time.

In Europe fines are used extensively, are enforced, and are normally the sole sanction for

a wide range of crimes. The amounts are geared to both the severity of the offense and the

Hopeless Cases

THE MYTH: Persistent, lowlevel drug addicts are so downand-out, so hopeless, that there

is really nothing to be done to

help them.

THE REALITY: Targeted

programs that provide treatment

and services for people who

are homeless and addicted to

drugs—cycling in and out of

the justice system on low-level

crimes—can reduce recidivism

rates by up to 60 percent.

Source: Susan E. Collins, Heather S.

Lonczak, and Seema L. Clifasefi, LEAD

Program Evaluation: Recidivism Report

(Seattle: University of Washington—

Harborview Medical Center, 2015).

MYTHS in Corrections

236 PART 2 Correctional Practices

financial resources of the convicted person. To deal with the concern that fines

exact a heavier toll on the poor than on the

wealthy, Sweden and Germany have developed the day fine, which bases the size of

the penalty on one’s income. For example,

a person making $36,500 a year and sentenced to 10 units of punishment would

pay $3,650; a person making $3,650 and

receiving the same penalty would pay $365

(see “For Critical Thinking”).

Forfeiture With the passage of the

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and the Continuing Criminal Enterprise Act (CCE) in

1970, Congress resurrected forfeiture, a

criminal sanction that had lain dormant

since the American Revolution. Through

amendments in 1984 and 1986, Congress

improved ways to implement the law,

making prosecution easier. Similar laws

are now found in several states, particularly with respect to controlled substances and organized crime.

Forfeiture, in which the government seizes property derived from or used in criminal activity, can take both civil and criminal forms. Under civil law, property used in criminal

activity (for example, automobiles, boats, or equipment used to manufacture illegal drugs) can

be seized without a finding of guilt. Under criminal law, forfeiture is imposed as a consequence

of conviction and allows the courts to impound various assets related to the crime. These assets

can be considerable. In 2014 a total of $4.5 billion in assets were seized under asset forfeiture

laws—more than the total losses of all the burglaries that same year.9

However, forfeiture is controversial. Critics argue

that confiscating property without a court hearing

violates citizens’ constitutional rights. In 1993 the

U.S. Supreme Court restricted the use of summary

forfeiture. Now the use of this sanction has waned.10

Community Service and Restitution

Although for years judges have imposed community service and restitution, few judges have used

them as exclusive sanctions. Recently, with prisons

overcrowded and judges searching for efficient

sentencing options, interest in these sanctions has

increased.

Community service requires the performance of a specified number of hours of free labor

in some public service, such as street cleaning,

repair of run-down housing, or hospital volunteer

work. Restitution is compensation for financial,

physical, or emotional loss caused by the crime, in

the form of either payment of money to the victim

or to a public fund for crime victims.

Both alternatives rest on the assumption that

a person can atone for the crime with a personal

or financial contribution to the victim or to society. They have been called reparative alternatives

day fine A criminal penalty

based on the amount of income a

person earns in a day’s work.

forfeiture Government seizure

of property and other assets

derived from or used in criminal

activity.

▲ Authorities prepare vehicles for auction after they were seized during

drug arrests. Money received from these auctions pays for training and

equipment for criminal justice agencies.

ZUMA Press Inc./Alamy Stock Photo

FOR CRITICAL THINKING

Fines and restitution are two of the most commonly used

intermediate sanctions. Advocates say they enable a person to be held

accountable for a crime without having to impose a term of incarceration. But some critics point out that financial penalties can inadvertently

favor people who have greater means, and work against the poor.

Moreover, financial penalties tend to stack up, leaving people forever

dealing with the consequences of their conviction because their money

problems keep them in trouble.

1. Do fines work in favor of the rich? What can be done about that?

2. Is it fair to impose monetary penalties that also affect family member

quality of life?

3. Is it fair to victims to impose restitution as a sentence when it is clear

that a person will never be able to afford to pay it?

4. Does it make sense to stack on financial penalties? At what point

does the use of financial penalties become counterproductive?

Source: Karin D. Martin, Sandra Susan Smith, and Wendy Still, “Shackled to Debt: Criminal Justice Financial

Obligations and the Barriers to Re-entry They Create,” New Thinking in Community Corrections Paper No. 4

(Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, 2017).

CHAPTER 9 Intermediate Sanctions and Community Corrections 237

because they seek to repair some of the harm done.

Such approaches have become popular because

they force a positive contribution to be made to

offset the damage, thus satisfying a common public

desire that people not “get away” with their crimes.

The effectiveness of these programs is mixed.

Studies have found that, without such programs,

many—perhaps most—of the people who were

ordered to provide community service and restitution would have been punished with a traditional

probation sentence. This does not speak strongly

to community service being a real solution for

correctional crowding. The most comprehensive

study of community service versus imprisonment

finds persuasive evidence that community service

results in lower recidivism rates than prison.11

Moreover, people made to pay restitution experience it as both punitive and rehabilitative. And

people sentenced to community service may end

up having lower rearrest rates than would be

expected if they had been sentenced differently.

In sum, community service and restitution

show that simply implementing a so-called alternative does not always achieve the aims of intermediate sanctions. In order not to widen the net,

careful attention must be paid to selecting appropriate people for these programs. Judicial decision

making must be controlled to ensure that people

who enter the programs are those who otherwise

would have been incarcerated.

Sanctions Administered by Probation

Departments

One basic argument for intermediate sanctions is that probation, as traditionally practiced, is

inadequate for a large portion of people convicted of crimes, particularly serious crimes. Probation leaders have responded to this criticism by developing new intermediate sanctions programs and expanding old ones. New programs often rely on increased surveillance and control.

Often, old programs are revamped to become more efficient and expanded to fit more people.

Day Reporting (Treatment) Centers Recently, as prisons became more and more

crowded, judges grew reluctant to incarcerate probation violators except when the violation involved a new crime. As a result, people on probation in some jurisdictions came to realize that

they could disregard probation rules with relative impunity. Probation administrators found

that the lack of credibility with clients severely hampered their effectiveness.

The solution seemed to be the development of probation-run enforcement programs. For

example, Georgia has experimented with probation centers, where persistent probation violators reside for short periods. Massachusetts and New York City have instituted day reporting centers, where violators attend daylong intervention and treatment sessions (see Chapter 7).

Minnesota and other states have established restitution centers, where those who fall behind

in restitution are sent to make payments on their debt. These centers have been found to reduce

the amount of jail time that clients end up serving and to reduce their recidivism rates.12

All of these types of centers are modeled after an innovation developed in Great Britain in

the 1970s. In the United States these facilities vary widely, but all provide a credible option for

probation agencies to enforce conditions when prisons are overcrowded. All of them, regardless

community service

Compensation for injury to

society by the performance of

service in the community.

restitution Compensation for

financial, physical, or emotional

loss caused by the crime, in the

form of either payment of money

to the victim or to a public fund

for crime victims, as stipulated by

the court.

probation center Residential

facility where persistent probation

violators are sent for short

periods of time.

restitution center Facility

where people who fall behind

in restitution are sent to make

payments on their debt.

AP Images/Daily Journal/Scott Roberson

▲ Community service can involve many different kinds of jobs. Here,

Brandon Hinkle cleans kennels at an animal shelter as part of his

court-ordered community service. When it works well, community

service not only does something for the community but also offers

an opportunity for the offender to feel good about “giving back.”

238 PART 2 Correctional Practices

of specific type, are usually referred to as day reporting centers. Most day reporting centers use

a mix of common correctional methods. For example, some provide a treatment regimen comparable to that of a halfway house—but without the problems of running a residential facility.

Others provide contact levels equal to or greater than intensive supervision programs, in effect

creating a community equivalent to confinement.

The only sophisticated study of day reporting centers to date does not support this

approach. People who participated in day reporting centers were much quicker to experience a

new arrest than those who did not participate. In the long run, there was no overall difference in

recidivism rates.13 One problem common to newly established intermediate sanctions programs

is that stringent eligibility requirements result in small numbers of cases entering the program.

Day reporting centers are growing in popularity faster than evidence concerning their

effectiveness is appearing, with hundreds of programs now operating in more than half of the

states. If they do not affect recidivism, then the ultimate test of these programs will involve two

questions: (1) how much do they improve probation’s credibility as a sanction? and (2) how well

do they combat jail and prison crowding?

Intensive Supervision Intensive supervision probation (ISP) has sprung up around

the country, and it seems ideally suited to the pressures facing corrections. Because ISP targets

those who are subject to incarceration, it should help alleviate crowding; because ISP involves

strict supervision, it responds to community pressures to be in control.

What constitutes intensive supervision? Even the most ambitious programs require only

daily contacts between probation officers and those they are supervising. Such contacts, which

can last 10 minutes or less, never occupy more than a minuscule portion of the client’s waking

hours. So, no matter how intensive the supervision, substantial trust must still be placed in the

person on probation.

Early evaluations of ISP programs in Georgia, New York, and Texas found that intensive

supervision can reduce rearrest rates. Nevertheless, these programs were not received without

controversy. For one thing, the low number of rearrests came at a cost. All evaluations of intensive

supervision found that, probably because of the closer contact, probation officers uncovered more

rules violations than they did in regular probation. Therefore, ISP programs often had higher

technical failure rates than did regular probation, even though ISP clients had fewer arrests.

This was precisely what researchers found in a series of important experiments testing ISP

effectiveness. People on probation in California were randomly assigned to either ISP or regular

supervision. Results indicated no differences in overall rearrest rates but substantial differences in

probation failure rates. ISP clients did much worse under the stricter rules—possibly because ISP

makes detecting rules violations easier.14 In sum, these programs not only failed to reduce crime

but actually cost the public more than if the programs had not been started in the first place.

Despite questions about the effectiveness of ISP, the approach has enjoyed wide support

from correctional administrators, judges,

and even prosecutors. The close supervision

has revitalized the reputation of probation in

the criminal justice system. It has also demonstrated probation’s ability to enforce strict

rules, ensure employment, support treatment

programs, and so forth. Given the positive

public relations, ISP is likely here to stay.

Although intensive supervision may satisfy public demands for control measures, the

people placed on probation continue to need

various forms of assistance. Many of them face

serious personal problems—unemployment,

emotional and family crises, substance

abuse—that require service or treatment.

Therefore, officers still have to juggle the

roles of helper and controller. On paper the

conflicts between these roles in ISP programs

intensive supervision

probation (ISP) Probation

granted with conditions of strict

reporting to a probation officer

who has a limited caseload.

David Samson, center,

former chairman of the

Port Authority of New

York and New Jersey,

has reason to be pleased.

Instead of prison he

was sentenced to a year

of home confinement

followed by four years of

probation for a bribery

conviction. ▼

Peter Foley/Bloomberg/Getty Images

CHAPTER 9 Intermediate Sanctions and Community Corrections 239

may seem less extreme, but in practice they may well continue and perhaps be exacerbated by

the mixed messages of the programs.

Home Confinement Under home confinement, people are sentenced to incarceration but serve their term in their own home. Variations are possible. For instance, after a time

some might be allowed to go to work or simply leave home for restricted periods during the day;

others might be allowed to maintain employment for their entire sentence. Whatever the details,

the concept involves using the person’s residence as the place of punishment.

On the surface, the idea of home confinement is appealing. It costs the state nothing

for housing; the client pays for lodging, subsistence, and often even the cost of an electronic

monitor. More importantly, significant community ties can be maintained—to family, friends

(restricted visitation is ordinarily allowed), employers, and community groups. The punishment

is more visible to the community than when the sentence is prison. The goals of reintegration,

deterrence, and financial responsibility are served simultaneously. When people know a little

bit about home confinement, they tend to favor it for many kinds of crimes. To illustrate how

powerful this can be, some criminal justice college classes require students to stay at home for an

entire 24-hour period. Students generally learn that a long stay at home would be quite a penalty.

Evaluations of home confinement provide a few impressions of how the program works.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that the effectiveness of home confinement seems to wear off after

a few months; it is increasingly difficult to enforce detention conditions as the sentence rounds

into its second half-year. The program seems best suited to low-risk cases who have relatively

stable residences.

Electronic Monitoring One of the most popular new approaches to probation supervision is surveillance by electronic monitors. The use of electronic monitors has more than doubled in the last decade.15 Electronic monitoring is ordinarily combined with and used to enforce

home confinement. The total number of people currently under monitoring is difficult to estimate because the equipment manufacturers consider this to be privileged information, but the

U.S. Department of Justice has estimated that there are 14,200 people under electronic monitoring.16 For most of these people, monitoring is a condition of a probation sentence.

Two basic types of electronic-monitoring devices exist. Passive monitors respond only to

inquiries; most commonly there is an automated telephone call from the probation office, and

the device has to be placed on a receiver attached to the phone. Active devices send continuous

signals that are picked up by a receiver; a computer notes any break in the signal.

Advances in the technology will soon make passive monitors obsolete. The coming generation of devices will be smaller and less awkward to wear. The data they send will be combined

with mapping data to show the exact whereabouts at any given time of the person being monitored, including whether the person has ventured into a restricted area and whether there is

another person under monitor control close by. The companies that provide electronic monitoring advocate that a “new generation” of devices and programs will more closely integrate monitoring into treatment aspects of programs, rather than just providing surveillance.17 The chances

for a deeper penetration into the life of a person who is on the streets seem already upon us.18

Advocates of these systems point out that they are tougher than probation and cheaper

than incarceration (a per diem cost of $6–$20 for electronic monitoring versus $40–$90 for jail),

especially because the client often pays to use the system.19 Yet even if most of the 14,200 people

under electronic monitoring as a condition of a jail sentence have been truly diverted from confinement, that is only around 1.7 percent of the total jail population.20 Nonetheless, these systems are more humane than prison or jail because people under surveillance can keep their jobs

and stay with their families. In addition, probation officers are free to spend more time providing services rather than carrying out surveillance.

Studies of electronic monitoring show that they hold promise for achieving important correctional goals. Florida’s community control cases have lower rearrest rates than people sentenced

to jail, and this large program of electronic monitoring is believed to save the state a considerable amount of money, though studies in other states have not been as positive.21 An electronic

monitoring experiment in San Diego for people convicted of sex crimes found higher rates of

compliance with registry laws and lower rearrest rates, suggesting that electronic monitoring

home confinement

Sentence whereby people serve

a term of incarceration in their

own home.

240 PART 2 Correctional Practices

could be successful with this kind of conviction, which typically results in a prison sentence.22 A

large field study in Denmark found that electronic monitoring proved less harmful than prison

for people under correctional control, indicating that it is a more humane alternative.23

Some observers oppose electronic monitoring because only people who own telephones

and who can afford the $25–$100 per week that these systems cost to rent are eligible. In addition, confinement to the home is no guarantee that crimes will not occur. Many crimes—child

abuse, drug sales, and assaults, to name a few—commonly occur in residences.

Moreover, the reliability of these devices has recently become an issue. Some people have

figured out how to remove the monitors without detection; others have been arrested at the

scene of a crime—even though the monitoring system indicated that they were safely at home.

Monitors can also intrude on the privacy of the family and be unduly stressful for the family.

Despite these drawbacks, the use of electronic monitoring will likely continue to increase,

along with technological advances. Recently, global positioning systems (GPS), which use satellite tracking devices to monitor whereabouts, have become more feasible. These new approaches

provide 24-hour verification of a person’s exact location.

Sanctions Administered by Correctional

Departments

Correctional agencies have had to develop intermediate sanctions to manage their burgeoning caseloads. Some correctional agencies rely on electronic monitoring to support an earlyrelease program, but shock incarceration and boot camps are the two most common responses

to overcrowding.

Shock Incarceration The fact that the deterrent effect of incarceration wears off after

a very short term of imprisonment has led to experimentation with shock incarceration. The

person is sentenced to a jail or prison term; then, after 30 to 90 days, the judge reduces the sentence. The assumption is that the jail experience will be so distasteful that the person will be

motivated to “stay clean.”

Shock incarceration is controversial. Its critics argue that it combines the undesirable

aspects of both probation and imprisonment. People who are incarcerated lose their jobs, have

their community relationships disrupted, acquire the convict label, and are exposed to the brutalizing experiences of the institution. Further, the release to probation reinforces the idea that

the system is arbitrary in decision making

and that probation is a “break” rather than

a truly individualized supervision program. It is hard to see how such treatment

will not be demeaning and embittering.

As we pointed out at the opening of this

chapter, many studies of shock incarceration showed no improvement in recidivism

rates. Nonetheless, interest has remained

high, leading to a new form of the shock

technique called boot camp.

Boot Camp One variation on shock

incarceration is the boot camp, in which

young people serve a short institutional

sentence and then go through a rigorous,

paramilitary regimen designed to develop

discipline and respect for authority. The

daily routine includes strenuous workouts,

marches, drills, and hard physical labor.

Proponents of boot camp argue that

many young people get involved in crime

shock incarceration A

short period of incarceration (the

“shock”), followed by a sentence

reduction.

boot camp A physically

rigorous, disciplined, and

demanding regimen emphasizing

conditioning, education, and job

training, designed primarily for

the young.

Social worker Billie Sue

Wallis serves up fresh

bread pudding for clients

of Partnership for Active

Community Engagement,

which offers mental

health and other services

to keep people in the

Boulder, Colorado, justice

system from returning to

jail. ▼

Brian Brainerd/The Denver Post/Getty Images

CHAPTER 9 Intermediate Sanctions and Community Corrections 241

because they lack self-respect and cannot order their lives. Consequently, the boot camp model

targets young first-timers who seem to be embarking on a path of sustained criminality. Evaluations show that those who are given boot camp may improve in self-esteem. But critics argue

that military-style physical training and the harshness of the experience do little to overcome

problems that get inner-city youths in trouble with the law. In fact, follow-ups of boot camp

graduates show they do no better than others after release. This ineffectiveness has led several

authorities to close their boot camps. Even more troubling are the charges of fatal physical abuse

that, in some states, have led to the closing of all of their boot camps.

Studies show that only boot camps that are carefully designed, target the right people, and

give them rehabilitative services are likely to save money and reduce recidivism.24 Too many

boot camps overemphasize discipline, to the detriment of the graduates. In fact, in Maricopa

County, Arizona, a special group had to be set up for boot camp graduates because their failure

rates were so high after leaving the program.

Do boot camps work? There is no firm answer, but results to date have not been promising.

Perhaps job training and education would be more beneficial than physical training. The intentionally harsh tactics of boot camp are brutal, especially for impressionable young people, and

even when these tactics are combined with a heavy emphasis on rehabilitation programming,

they appear to fail to reduce rearrest rates.25 Nevertheless, the approach has proved popular with

a public that is searching for new ways to deal with crime.

Making Intermediate

Sanctions Work

Intermediate sanctions have not been used long enough to allow a complete evaluation of their

effectiveness. Only a few of the hundreds of programs attempted since the mid-1980s have been

studied. Summaries of the value of intermediate sanctions note frequent failures to achieve

goals, but that certainly does not mean the idea should be abandoned.

One evaluation problem is that intermediate sanctions often profess lofty goals such as

improving justice, saving money, and preventing crime. Yet the limited record on intermediate sanctions suggests that these goals are not always accomplished. If intermediate sanctions

are to work, they must be carefully planned and implemented. Even then they must overcome

obstacles and resolve such issues as sentencing philosophies and practices, selection criteria, and

surveillance and control methods.

Sentencing Issues

The most important issue concerning the use of intermediate sanctions has to do with sentencing

philosophy and practice. In recent years, greater emphasis has been placed on deserved punishment: the idea that similar offenses deserve penalties of similar severity. Intermediate sanctions

could potentially increase the number of midrange punishments and thereby improve justice.

Yet advocates of deserved punishment argue that it is not automatically evident how intermediate sanctions compare with either prison or probation in terms of severity, nor is it clear

how they compare with one another. For example, placing someone on intensive probation

while ordering someone else to pay a heavy fine may violate the equal punishment rationale of

just deserts.

When intermediate sanctions are used to reduce prison crowding, the issue becomes even

murkier. For example, is it fair for some to receive prison terms while others receive the intermediate sanction alternative?

For intermediate sanctions to be effective, exchange rates consistent with the

principle of interchangeability must be developed so that one form can be substituted for

or added to another form. In other words, different forms of intermediate sanctions must be

calibrated to make them equivalent as punishments despite their differences in approach. For

example, 2 weeks of jail might be considered equal to 30 days of intermittent confinement or

principle of

interchangeability The

idea that different forms of

intermediate sanctions can

be calibrated to make them

equivalent as punishments

despite their differences in

approach.

242 PART 2 Correctional Practices

2 months of home confinement or 100 hours of community service or 1 month’s salary. (Table 9.1

shows the number of people who serve various intermediate sanctions as an alternative to jail.)

Advocates say that, in terms of intrusiveness, a short prison sentence can be roughly equivalent to some intensive supervision programs or residential drug treatment and that various

forms of intermediate sanctions can be made roughly equivalent to one another. It is clear, both

from studies and from experience, that some people would rather be in prison than be placed on

tough intermediate sanctions. Thus, one can design intermediate sanctions that equal incarceration in terms of intrusion, thereby upholding the principles of deserved punishment.

Yet these studies are troubling in that they find substantial differences across racial groups

in the preference for prison over intermediate sanctions. For example, African Americans and

Hispanics are more likely than whites to rate prison as preferable to an intermediate sanction.

This raises a concern that widespread adoption of intermediate sanctions may further exacerbate racial disparities in prison populations.

In practice, some observers have tried to structure this principle of interchangeability by

describing punishment in terms of units: A month in prison might count as 30 units; a month

on intensive supervision might count as 10. Thus, a year on ISP would be about the same as a

four-month prison stay. To date, no one has designed a full-blown system of interchangeability, though both the federal sentencing guidelines and those in Oregon embrace the concept of

punishment units. The future will likely bring attempts to create interchangeability based on the

relative weights of punishments.

Selection Issues

If intermediate sanctions are to work, they must be reserved for the right cases; which clients

are chosen, in turn, depends on a program’s goals. No matter what the program’s goals, however,

intermediate sanctions must be made available regardless of race, sex, or age.

The Target Group Intermediate sanctions have two general goals: (1) to serve as a less

costly alternative to prison and (2) to provide a more effective alternative to probation. To meet

these goals, intermediate sanctions managers search for appropriate cases to include in their

program—often a difficult task. But there are plenty of people who might be prison-bound yet

who seem to be appropriate candidates for intermediate sanctions: One study of prison-bound

Californians found that as many as one-fourth of them would have been suitable for intermediate sanctions.26

TABLE 9.1 Persons Under Jail Supervision Assigned to Intermediate Sanctions

Of the 808,070 people who are under some form of jail supervision, more than 1 in 12 are in

an intermediate sanction program.

Intermediate Sanction Program Number

Weekender programs 9,698

Electronic monitoring (EM) 14,223

Home detention (no EM) 646

Day reporting 4,413

Community service 14,331

Other pretrial supervision 8,634

Other work programs 7,003

Treatment programs 2,100

Other outside programs 2,430

Total 63,478

Source: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Statistical Tables (June 2015), 9.

CHAPTER 9 Intermediate Sanctions and Community Corrections 243

Because of judges’ reluctance to divert people from prison, many intermediate sanctions

programs billed as prison alternatives actually serve as probation alternatives. As an example,

consider boot camp programs, which are usually restricted to first-timers, age 16 to 25, who

have been convicted of property crimes. Boot camp, then, cannot be considered an effective

prison alternative because young first-timers convicted of property crimes seldom go to prison.

Probation alternatives (often called probation enhancements) face a similar problem. Theoretically, they should be restricted to the highest-risk cases on probation—those needing the

most surveillance and control. Typically, however, the conservatism inherent in new programs

makes the truly high-risk cases ineligible for the program.

Clearly, when intermediate sanctions are applied to the wrong target group, they cannot

achieve their goals. When prison alternatives are applied to nonprison cases, they cannot save

money. When probation-enhancement programs are provided to low-risk clients, they cannot

reduce much crime.

One possible solution is to use intermediate sanctions as a backup for clients who fail on

regular probation or parole. This practice would increase the probability that the target group is

composed of high-risk clients and the prison-bound.

Problems of Bias Race, sex, and age bias are of particular concern for intermediate sanctions. Because getting sentenced to an intermediate sanction involves official (usually judicial)

discretion, the concern is that white, middle-class cases will receive less harsh treatment than will

other groups. In fact, unless program administrators work hard to widen their program’s applicability, nonwhites will be most likely to remain incarcerated rather than receive alternative sanctions, and minorities may be more likely to face tougher supervision instead of regular probation.

Alternative sanctions also tend to be designed for men, not women. One could argue that

this is reasonable because men make up over 80 percent of the correctional population, but the

patently unfair result may be that special programs are available only to men. Moreover, some

experts on women who have committed crimes challenge the design of intermediate sanctions,

which are often based on tough supervision. They argue that measures for many women should

instead emphasize social services.

Solutions to the problem of bias are neither obvious nor uncontroversial. Most observers

recognize that some discretion is necessary in placing people in specialized programs. They

believe that without the confidence of program officials, people are more likely to fail. This

means that automatic eligibility for these programs may not be a good idea. It may be necessary

to recognize the potential for bias and to control it by designing programs especially for women,

for example, making certain that cultural factors are taken into account in selecting people for

these programs.

Using Surveillance and Control

in Community Corrections

People who are in prison are always being watched, and they have extreme limits placed on their

freedom. In order to be palatable as alternatives to imprisonment, many intermediate sanctions

use heightened surveillance and control as a means of demonstrating that intermediate sanctions can also be onerous. The rhetoric of “tough” supervision is designed to instill confidence in

a doubting public that keeping people in the community will pose no threat.

Surveillance has other goals as well. Without some degree of surveillance, treatment providers cannot know for sure if a given treatment is working. The providers argue that some form

of drug use surveillance, for instance, is essential to any drug treatment program. Deterrenceminded people argue that tough surveillance deters crime in two ways: (1) it makes people less

willing to decide to commit a crime because they are being watched so closely, and (2) it catches

people still active in crime earlier in their recidivism.

Community corrections uses four general types of control strategies: drugs, electronics,

human surveillance, and control programs. They may be used either separately or in combination.

244 PART 2 Correctional Practices

Drug Controls

It is perhaps ironic that a society so concerned about drug abuse uses chemicals as one of the

main strategies for controlling human behavior. A long tradition of prescribing drugs for precisely this purpose exists in the United States. Four drugs illustrate the kind of control regimen

that is available by using chemicals:

1. Antabuse is frequently given to alcohol abusers. Antabuse blocks the metabolism of alcohol,

so if a person on Antabuse drinks, he or she will experience unpleasant side effects, such as

severe nausea. The drug is controversial because it is seldom taken voluntarily and its side

effects are so undesirable.

2. Sometimes called “chemical castration,” the drug Depo-Provera constrains the male sexual

response. It is used to reduce or eliminate the sex drive of men convicted of certain sex offenses. The drug is fairly effective in eliminating the capacity to sustain an erection, but it

does nothing to counter the aggression inherent in sex offenses.

3. Chlorpromazine (trade names include Thorazine and Largactil) has long been prescribed

for people suffering from certain psychotic disorders, such as schizophrenia. Chlorpromazine is a drug designed to help people think more clearly. It may also reduce hallucinations

experienced by people with schizophrenia, as well as the likelihood of them engaging in

violence toward themselves or others.

4. For clients who suffer from depression, the drug Prozac is often prescribed. Widely used,

this drug decreases the low, sad feelings that accompany depression. (Zoloft and Paxil are

also used, though less frequently.)

These examples illustrate the range of problems addressed through drugs and the variety of

physical, biological, and emotional responses that these drugs produce. The examples also show

the controversial nature of chemical controls—they often have adverse side effects, and their

effectiveness is sometimes questionable.

Electronic Controls

Perhaps the most important penal innovation of the 1980s was electronic monitoring. As we

saw earlier in the chapter, the idea of electronic monitoring has many advantages: It represents

“high-tech” corrections, and it costs less than prison. This technology is becoming particularly

popular in community supervision of people convicted of sex crimes.

The electronic age has made possible a quantum leap in surveillance technology. For example,

the technology now exists for visual monitoring via telephone lines. Therefore, video screens can

be used to ensure that the person is actually at home during the phone call. The probation officer

can simply make a call and then conduct a face-to-face interview without ever leaving the office.

Consider also the technology of the “electric fence” that is now used to confine some dogs.

It establishes a perimeter (usually the yard) outside of which the dog may not venture without

getting an electric shock. This kind of technology might be easily adapted to keep selected individuals away from schools, bars, or other areas. In theory, at least, it could allow extensive freedom within the necessary restrictions.

The state of New Jersey requires people released from prison who have criminal histories

for sex crimes to receive some form of parole supervision for life.27 Another application of technology allows correctional officials to monitor the computer and Internet use of people convicted of sex crimes and to restrict access to sexually explicit websites, under the theory that

such websites stimulate the desire for repeat sexual offending.28

Human Surveillance Controls

Unlike the technological advances of electronics and drugs, personal contact allows the correctional worker to process an array of subtle information—body language, attitudes, odors, and

so forth. When it comes to surveillance, no approach can fully supplant the basic strategy of

increasing contact with the experienced correctional worker.

CHAPTER 9 Intermediate Sanctions and Community Corrections 245

Intensive supervision systems have been used to increase both the frequency and the diversity of this surveillance contact. What makes the surveillance effective is not just how much

contact there is but how diverse it is. Clients are seen at the office, in their homes, and at work;

they are seen at regular intervals and in “surprise” visits. The dominant effect is an aura of surveillance in which no aspect of the person’s life is totally free of potential observation.

In short, through routine and random contacts, the correctional officer can observe a wide

range of behavior in a broad array of situations. Increasing this capacity yields a deeper confidence that there is compliance with the law.

One of the most recent trends is to empower everyday citizens to perform their own surveillance. All 50 states now have sex offender registries, and both law enforcement and the general public have access to much of the data on these registries.29 Sex offender notification laws

enable neighbors to keep an eye on any people living near them who have been convicted of

a sex crime. Similar measures being considered include sex offender license plates30 and public access to GPS monitoring.31 These programs have proved very popular, even though their

results have sometimes been problematic.32 In Chicago, for example, housing restrictions placed

on people with sex crime histories can exclude them from vast sections of the neighborhoods

where most of them can afford to live, and as a consequence many live in places that violate the

restrictions because of proximity to a school or day-care center.33

Programmatic Controls

The most widely used techniques of surveillance and control are established elements of treatment programs. Drug testing is a good example. In these programs, urine samples are routinely

taken to test for drug use. Normally, a urine sample has to be submitted (with a correctional

worker watching as it is “produced” to ensure whose urine it is) and then sent to a lab for testing. Recently, on-the-spot tests have been developed to overcome the problem of delays in test

results.

Programs also sometimes provide for systems of surveillance and control to support treatment. Vermont’s Relapse Prevention Program trains the client to be aware of potential “signals”

that indicate a return to deviant sexual behavior, and selected individuals living in the client’s

personal community—family, friends, therapists, and coworkers—are taught to look for the

same signs. In effect, these people become additional eyes and ears for the correctional worker,

who regularly contacts them to see if the person is exhibiting behavioral changes that should

concern the authorities. Similarly, electronic monitoring is being tested to aid programs for

school truants and for people who have been ordered to pay child support.34

The New Correctional Professional

Without a doubt, the advent of intermediate sanctions has changed the work world of the professional in corrections. The long-standing choice between prison and probation now includes

community and residential options that run the gamut from tough, surveillance-oriented operations to supportive, treatment-based programs. The kinds of professionals needed to staff these

programs vary from recent college graduates to experienced and well-trained mental health clinicians. However, three major shifts in the working environment of the new correctional professional are central to this growth.

First, nongovernment organizations have emerged to administer community corrections programs. Hundreds of nonprofit agencies, such as CASES, now dot the correctional

landscape (see “CASES: Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services”). These

organizations contract with probation and parole agencies to provide services to clients in the

community.

Second, an increased emphasis on accountability has reduced individual discretion. Professionals currently work within boundaries, often defined as guidelines, that specify policy

options in different case types. For instance, a staff member may be told that each client must be

seen twice a month in the office and once a month in the community and that each time a urine

246 PART 2 Correctional Practices

The Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment

Services (CASES) was created in 1989 as a New York City

nonprofit “alternative to incarceration.” Its mission is “to

increase public safety through innovative services that reduce

crime and incarceration, improve behavioral health, promote

recovery and rehabilitation, and create opportunities for success in the community.”

CASES illustrates what can be accomplished with a comprehensive, nonprofit service center designed to reform correctional practice. Over the years, the agency has evolved from

a focus on providing community service and employment services at sentencing to offering prevention programs across the

spectrum of the criminal justice system. Today, CASES serves

nearly 6,000 youths and adults across New York City by operating more than 20 programs, including the following:

■ Preventing arrest among young people who are gang

affiliated or otherwise at high risk for involvement with

the criminal justice system

■ Preventing a criminal record for youths who have been

arrested but have not yet been formally charged

■ Diverting youths and adults from jail while they are

awaiting trial on misdemeanor or felony charges

■ Diverting youths and adults from incarceration after felony convictions, when they can be safely supervised in

the community through engagement in support and/or

treatment services

■ Reducing recidivism of youths and adults returning from

jail or prison to the community

CASES has also become known for its expertise in working with justice-involved people who have mental health

needs including even serious mental illness, with national recognition for its award-winning Nathaniel Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) alternative to incarceration program for

adults who have serious mental illness and who are prisonbound as the result of felony convictions. Aside from being

more effective in dealing with complicated clients, CASES’s

many programs result in significant public savings. The agency’s services cost an average of $63 per client per day, compared to an average daily cost of incarceration at New York

City’s Rikers Island jail of $460.

FOCUS ON

CORRECTIONAL PRACTICE: CASES: Center for Alternative Sentencing

and Employment Services

sample must be taken. Rules such as these not only constrain discretion but also provide a basis

for holding staff accountable.

Third, the relationship between the professional and the client has become less important

than the principles of criminal justice that underlie that relationship. Instead of training in psychology and counseling, for instance, the new correctional professional receives training in law

and criminal justice decision making. This means that the sources of job satisfaction have shifted

from helping people with their problems toward simply shepherding them through the system.

Thus, the new correctional professional is more accountable for decision making and is

more oriented toward the system in carrying out agency policy. This has significant implications for the motivation and training of staff, but it also means that in the traditional threeway balance among clients, staff, and the bureaucracy, the last has grown in importance.

(See “Careers in Corrections” to learn about one type of correctional professional: addiction

treatment specialist.)

Community Corrections Legislation

Most correctional clients in the United States are under state or county authority. Corrections

systems located only a few miles apart can vary dramatically in philosophy and practice because

of differences in community values, interests, and politics. In most states, judges, prosecutors,

and sheriffs are elected by voters in each county. These officials have extensive discretion concerning the disposition of cases. Their decisions often reflect the political and social realities of

their community. For instance, a person who crosses the border from Utah to Nevada goes from

a state with one of the lowest incarceration rates in the United States to a state with one of the

highest, even though their crime rates are nearly identical.

CHAPTER 9 Intermediate Sanctions and Community Corrections 247

The differences in the style and philosophy of correctional programs in different localities

reflect a basic truth about law and order: Beliefs about right and wrong, as well as values about

how to deal with wrongdoers, differ from one locality to the next. Over the years the concept of

community corrections has revolved around many themes, but one core idea has endured—that

local governments know best how to deal with their own crime problems. As such, local and

state laws reflect unique ways of implementing community corrections, even though they share

similar goals. As we will see in the following discussions, the implementation and evaluation of

community corrections must take local differences into account.

Reducing Reliance on Prison

Community corrections legislation is best understood in terms of its goal to reduce reliance

on prisons. In pursuit of this goal, it embraces a wide spectrum of alternatives to incarceration

among which judges and other criminal justice system officials can choose.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, several states considered legislation that would establish

financial and programmatic incentives for community corrections. For example, in 1965 California passed the Probation Subsidy Act, which sought to reimburse counties for maintaining

correctional clients in the local corrections system instead of sending them to state facilities.

Lawmakers developed a formula to determine the number who ordinarily would be sent to state

institutions and to pay the counties a specified sum for each one not sent to prison. The counties

could then use the money to strengthen probation and other local correctional services in order

to handle the additional numbers. (See “Thinking Outside the Box.”)

In 1973 Minnesota passed the Comprehensive Community Corrections Act, which funded

local corrections systems with money saved by state corrections when individuals were not sentenced to state facilities. Colorado in 1976 and Oregon in 1978 passed legislation patterned after

Minnesota’s law. The experiences of these pioneering states in community corrections were so

well regarded that by 1995, more than half of U.S. states had passed community corrections legislation. By 2007, the vast majority of states had done so, as shown in Figure 9.3.

Nature of the Work

Drug and alcohol abuse is a major problem that is often

linked to criminal behavior. Correctional addiction treatment specialists, also known as clinical social workers

or addiction counselors, may work with clients either in

prisons or in community health organizations. Addicted

clients are usually referred to treatment by the courts or by

probation, prison, or parole authorities. Addiction treatment is a major component of community corrections.

Addiction treatment specialists assess and treat

individuals with substance problems, including abuse of

alcohol or drugs. They develop treatment plans by examining a case’s institutional files and gathering information

from family members and other counselors. Treatment is

through individual and group therapy in either outpatient

or residential settings. Twelve-step programs are often incorporated into the treatment regimen.

Required Qualifications

A bachelor’s degree in social work and training in addiction therapies are normally the minimal requirements for

entry into this position. Some states require a master’s degree, certification in addiction treatment, and supervised

work experience.

Earnings and Job Outlook

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics expects that the

demand for treatment specialists will grow rapidly over

the next decade because substance abusers are increasingly being placed into community treatment programs

instead of being sent to prison. The median annual salary

for a substance abuse and behavioral disorder counselor

was $42,920 in 2015, with the lowest quartile earning less

than $31,850 and the highest more than $51,140.

More Information

You can obtain additional information about this occupation from the website of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Occupational Outlook Handbook.

CAREERS in Corrections

Addiction Treatment Specialist

248 PART 2 Correctional Practices

Community corrections legislation is based on the idea that local justice systems have little

incentive to keep their own community members in local corrections. State-administered institutions are funded by state tax revenues, and it costs communities little to send large numbers of

cases there. In contrast, it costs local citizens much more to keep clients in jail or on local probation because their taxes pay for those services.

THINKING

OUTSIDE

THE BOX

USING COST–BENEFIT ANALYSIS TO

DECIDE ON CORRECTIONAL PROGRAMS

It is now possible to analyze programs in terms of their “cost–

benefit ratio.” A cost–benefit ratio is a statistic that shows

how much benefit is received by a program or correctional

strategy for each dollar that it costs. The cost–benefit ratio

enables us to compare two different programs in terms of

payoff. For example, an expensive correctional program may

be so effective that it is worth what it costs; likewise, a much

cheaper correctional program may be preferable, even if its

outcomes are slightly less desirable.

Policy makers calculate cost–benefit ratios for correctional programs by putting a price tag on the crimes a person

commits when a program fails, then comparing the costs of

two different programs in terms of both their program costs

and the cost differences of their outcomes. Analysts who specialize in this kind of work point out that policy makers often

employ programs with unfavorable cost–benefit ratios because they like something about the program. For example,

boot camps have problematic cost–benefit ratios because

people who go to boot camps do no better than people who

are on regular probation. By contrast, people who get multisystemic family therapy have much better cost–benefit ratios

than people who simply go to jail. In the long run, some say,

cost–benefit ratios should be used to decide which programs

that correctional systems should employ.

Source: Adapted from Patricio Dominquez and Steven Raphael, “The

Role of the Cost-of-Crime Literature in Bridging the Gap Between Social

Science Research and Policy Making Potentials and Limitations,”

Criminology & Public Policy 14 (no. 4, November 2015): 589–632.

States with community

corrections acts

States without community

corrections acts

MT ND

MS AL GA

VA WV

IL OH

WI NY

FIGURE 9.3 States with Community Corrections Acts

Many states provide financial incentives for local governments to keep people in local correctional agencies instead of sending

them to state prisons.

Source: Mary Shilton, “Community Corrections Acts by State,” http://centerforcommunitycorrections.org/?page_id=78 , September 24, 2009.

CHAPTER 9 Intermediate Sanctions and Community Corrections 249

Yet incarceration in a state prison costs substantially more than local incarceration or probation (see Table 9.2). In the long run, centralized, state-administered punishments seem to be

more expensive than local corrections. If we also acknowledge that many people are sentenced

to state prison when this extreme punishment is not necessary, we can easily see that the financial incentives that favor imprisonment run contrary to good correctional policy.

The “payback system” must establish some formula for determining baseline prison

commitment rates—that is, what number would normally be expected to be sent to prison.

Sending fewer people to prison would qualify for payback funds. Further, this formula must

be applied to all the state’s jurisdictions. This idea has problems, of course. Local corrections

systems do not contribute equally to over-incarceration; for example, urban and rural areas are

bound to contribute differently. The funding formula, then, is likely to result in some serious

inequities. For instance, California’s formula did not adjust for counties that had traditionally

restricted their use of incarceration; as a consequence, subsidies given to “progressive” counties were unlikely to be equal to those given to more “conservative” ones. Also, California’s

original 1965 rate of payback ($4,000 per person) was not adjusted for inflation, and by 1975

this amount was worth less than $2,500 per person. In contrast, Minnesota’s formula included

an inflation factor and permitted adjustments for a locality’s crime rate and the capacity of its

corrections system. Even so, the formula was criticized for providing lesser financial incentives

to cities, which had more eligible cases to deal with and correspondingly larger corrections

systems.

Evaluation of Community

Corrections Legislation

The main thrust of community corrections legislation—to limit dependence on prison—

comprises three aims:

1. To reduce the rate and number of people sentenced to state correctional facilities

2. To reduce tax revenues spent on corrections by transferring both the costs and the funding

to less-expensive local correctional facilities

3. To reduce prison populations

Have these aims been achieved? The answer is complicated.

Early evaluations of California’s Probation Subsidy Act showed that both adult and juvenile

commitments to state facilities decreased immediately following the enactment of the probation

TABLE 9.2 Costs of Incarceration and Intermediate Sanctions in Four States

In a study of Colorado, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia, intermediate sanctions proved far

less expensive than imprisonment.

Correctional Method Cost per Year per Person

Prison $27,851

Jail 19,555

Probation 1,307

Intensive supervision 3,585

Community service 4,316

Day reporting 4,352

House arrest 629

Electronic monitoring 3,148

Halfway house 19,555

Boot camp 37,108

Source: Based on data from Seeking Justice: Crime and Punishment in America (New York: Edna McConnell Clark

Foundation, 1997), 34. Adjusted for 2018 inflation by the authors.