THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNITYBASED SANCTIONS IN REDUCING RECIDIVISM

1
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNITY-BASED SANCTIONS IN
REDUCING RECIDIVISM

• SEPTEMBER 5, 2002
• OREGON DOC

2
PURPOSE OF STUDY

• Legislative request to evaluate effectiveness of
  community- based sanctions
• Reduce recidivism
• Protect public safety
• Community Corrections Act outcomes

3
PURPOSE OF STUDY cont

• Community Corrections Act outcomes
• provide appropriate sentencing and sanctioning
  options
• Provide improved local services to reduce repeat
  criminal offenses
• Use effective criminal sanctions to
• protect public safety
• administer punishment
• rehabilitate offender

4
LITERATURE REVIEW

• To reduce recidivism
• treatment and rehabilitation more likely to be
  successful than surveillance and enforcement
• Community-based sanctions more effective than
  jail
• Absent treatment, alternative sanctions no worse
  than jail

5
OREGON REVIEW

• Offenders receiving first ever sanction between
  1.1.99 and 12.31.01 (N13,219)
• Followed for one year
• Recidivism re-arrest, reconviction and
  re-sanctioning
• CIS and LEDS

6
LIMITATIONS

• Cannot separate pv from new arrests
• Only sanctions entered into sanction movement
  module used
• Generally, jail sanctions more complete
• Professional decision-making

7
RE-CONVICTION

• Re-conviction rate higher following jail sanction
  than community alternative sanction
• All community sanctions have lower rates of
  re-conviction than do jail sanctions
• Work crew/community service for high- and
  medium-risk
• Work centers for low/limited-risk

8
RECONVICTION cont

• High-risk -- time in jail does not impact
  reconviction rates
• Medium risk -- longer jail stay, higher rate of
  recidivism
• All crime types -- longer jail stays associated
  with higher recidivism

9
RE-ARREST

• No clear indication that either jail or community
  sanctions effect re-arrest rates
• There is no clear pattern relating length of jail
  stay to rates of re-arrest

10
COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS

• No clear indication that either jail or community
  sanctions compel future compliance
• No clear pattern of length of jail stay to rates
  of re-sanctioning

11
ROLE OF JUDGEMENT

• Key is selection and assignment of appropriate
  offenders to appropriate sanctions.
• Using appropriate risk/needs assessment can help
  us in this selection and assignment

12
SANCTIONS

• JAIL Brief durations as effective as longer,
  more costly
• COM SERVICE In Oregon, best for high- and
  medium-risk
• WORK CTR In Oregon, best for low- and limited-
  risk

13
RECOMMENDATIONS

• Have and use a range of interventions
• Use community service and/or work crews
• Adjust jail stays for better outcomes
• Pair sanctioning with treatment