Community corrections centers (CCCs, or ‘halfway houses’) represent a community-based justice strategy intended to reintegrate offenders into civil society. Site selection for these facilities is complicated by negative perceptions of CCC impacts on the part of potential host communities. I solve the CCC-location problem through the use of a framework based on value-focused thinking and quantitative decision models. The first of two mathematical models for CCC location is a novel integer programming formulation that incorporates neighborhood characteristics and equity considerations; the second is a straightforward application of the analytic hierarchy process. These models are applied to a case study in the city of Pittsburgh, PA. In contrast to traditional dispersion models, the mathematical programming model identifies sites in high-amenity neighborhoods which are argued to be associated with beneficial CCC client outcomes. Also, I find that sites selected using multicriteria decision models are relatively easy to generate and are competitive with mathematical programming models in terms of objective function measures.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BransJ PVinckeP, 1985, “A preference ranking organisation method (the PROMETHEE method for multiple criteria decision making)”Management Science31647–656
2.
Center for Community Corrections, 1997, “Community corrections: a call for punishments that make sense”, prepared by CikinsW IShiltonM KPopichalT, Center for Community Corrections, 1615 L Street NW, Suite 1200, Washington, DC
3.
ChurchR LGarfinkelR S, 1978, “Locating an obnoxious facility on a network”Transportation Science12107–118
4.
City of Pittsburgh, 1999City of Pittsburgh Urban Zoning CodeDepartment of City Planning, 200 Ross Street, 4th Floor, Pittsburgh, PA 15219
5.
CohonJ L, 1978Multiobjective Programming and Planning (Academic Press, New York)
6.
Creative Decisions Foundation, 2003aSuper Decisions Version 1.2.2Creative Decisions Foundation, 4922 Ellsworth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213
7.
Creative Decisions Foundation, 2003b, “Decision making in complex environments: the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) for decision making and the analytic network process (ANP) for decision making with dependence and feedback”, prepared by Rozann Saaty, Creative Decisions Foundation, 4922 Ellsworth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213
8.
DyerJ S, 1990, “Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process”Management Science36249–258
9.
EiseltH ALaporteG, 1995, “Objectives in location problems”, in Facility Location: A Survey of Applications and Methods Ed. DreznerZ (Springer, New York) pp 151–180
10.
Environmental Sciences Research Institute, 2001ArcView Version 3.2ESRI Inc., 380 New York Street, Redlands, CA 92373
11.
ErkutEMoranS, 1991, “Locating obnoxious facilities in the public sector: An application of the analytic hierarchy process to municipal landfill siting decisions”Socioeconomic Planning Sciences2589–102
12.
ErkutENeumanS, 1989, “Analytical models for locating undesirable facilities”European Journal of Operational Research40275–291
13.
GalsterG CTatianPSmithR, 1999, “The impact of neighbors who use Section 8 certificates on property values”Housing Policy Debate10879–917
14.
HolsappleC WWhinstonA B, 1996Decision Support Systems: A Knowledge-based Approach (West, St Paul, MN)
15.
ILOG-CPLEX Division, 2003aAMPL Version 8.0ILOG, 1080 Linda Vista Avenue, Mountain View, CA 94043
16.
ILOG-CPLEX Division, 2003bCPLEX 8.0 for AMPLILOG, 1080 Linda Vista Avenue, Mountain View, CA 94043
17.
JohnsonM P, 2003, “Site selection for location of community corrections centers”, Heinz School WP2002–43; available from the author
18.
KeeneyR L, 1992Value-focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decisionmaking (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA)
MalczewskiJ, 1999GIS and Multicriteria Decision Analysis (John Wiley, New York)
21.
MarshaM TSchillingD A, 1994, “Equity measurement in facility location analysis: A review and framework”European Journal of Operational Research741–17
22.
MilesM EBerensGWeissM A, 2000Real Estate Development: Principles and Process3rd edition (Urban Land Institute, Washington, DC)
23.
MurrayATChurchR LGerrardR ATsuiW-S, 1998, “Impact models for siting undesirable facilities”Papers in Regional Science7719–36
24.
National Committee on Community Corrections, undated Tough Punishments That Make SenseNational Committee on Community Corrections, 1155 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20036
OzernoyV M, 1992, “Choosing the ‘best’ multiple-criteria decision-making method”Information Systems and Operational Research30159–171
27.
Pittsburgh Foundation, 1999Getting to Work: A GIS Transportation Project for Allegheny CountyPittsburgh Foundation, 1 PPG Place, 30th Floor, Psittsburgh, PA
SaatyT, 1994, “How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process”Interfaces2419–43
33.
ShiltonM KFunkeG SQuinlanJ MElsteinS G, 1995Effective Sanctions That Fit the Budget: An Elected Official's Guide to Community CorrectionsAmerican Bar Association, 321 North Clark Street, Chicago, IL
34.
SpelmanW, 2000, “The limited importance of prison expansion”, in The Crime Drop in America Eds BlumsteinAWallmanJ (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) pp 97–129
