Florida Department of Corrections personnel and Florida circuit criminal court judges were surveyed regarding their attitudes about major program goals and objectives of the Florida Community Control program. Comparisons among these perceptions revealed some small but significant differences regarding the punishment and control of offender activities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Burkhart, Walter R.1986. “Intensive Probation Supervision: An Agenda for Research and Evaluation.”Federal Probation50:75-77.
2.
Byrne, James M.1986. “The Control Controversy: A Preliminary Examination of Intensive Probation Supervision Programs in the United States.”Federal Probation50:4-16.
3.
Clear, Todd R.
and Carol Shapiro. 1986. “Identifying High Risk Probationers for Supervision in the Community: The Oregon Model.”Federal Probation50:42-49.
4.
Conover, W. J.
1980. Practical Non-Parametric Statistics. 2nd ed.New York: John Wiley.
5.
Erwin, Billy
. 1986. “Turning Up the Heat on Probationers in Georgia.”Federal Probation50:17-24.
6.
Evans, Joseph H.
, Linda G. Smith, and Joan K. Hall. 1986. A Study of the Impact of Community Control as an Alternative to Incarceration: Final Report. Tampa: University of South Florida, Florida Mental Health Institute.
7.
Lurigio, Arthur J.1987. “The Perceptions and Attitudes of Judges and Attorneys Toward Intensive Probation Supervision.”Federal Probation51:16-24.
8.
Pearson, Frank S.1985. “New Jersey's Intensive Supervision Program: A Progress Report.”Crime & Delinquency31:393-410.
9.
Pearson, Frank S.
and Daniel B. Bibel. 1986. “New Jersey's Intensive Supervision Program: What Is It Like? How Is It Working?”Federal Probation50:25-31.
10.
Petersilia, Joan
. 1986. “Exploring the Option of House Arrest.”Federal Probation50:50-55.
