The Relationship Between Individual Characteristics,Quality of Confinement and Recidivism by Offenders Released From Privately and Publicly Managed Residential Community Corrections Facilities

Abstract

This study examines Commonwealth of Pennsylvania state prison data on inmates released to a term of residential community corrections in either a publicly or privately managed institution (n = 7,204). Analyses indicate significant associations of race, facility orderliness, extent of educational/vocational programming, and type of facility management (Commonwealth or a private provider) with an offender’s subsequent reincarceration. Results demonstrate that private entity cost efficiency and effectiveness claims are not supported, and the growth of the private sector in Pennsylvania residential community corrections may even be having a detrimental effect on desistence efforts.

Keywords

residential community corrections privatization orderliness cost effectiveness recidivism

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bales

W. D.

Bedard

L. E.

Quinn

S. T.

Ensely

D. T.

Holley

G. P.

(2005). Recidivism of public and private state prison inmates in Florida. Criminology & Public Policy, 4, 57-82.

Bell

Bucklen

K. B.

Nakamura

Tomkiel

Santore

Russell

Orth

(2013). Pennsylvania Department of Corrections: Recidivism report 2013. Harrisburg: Department of Corrections, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Retrieved from http://www.nationalcia.org/wp-content/uploads/2013-PA-DOC-Recidivism-Report.pdf

Byrne

J. M.

Taxman

F. S.

Hummer

(2005). An evaluation of the implementation and impact of NIC’s institutional culture initiative: Year 2 update. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections, Federal Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Department of Justice.

Carson

E. A.

(2015). Prisoners in 2014. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p14.pdf

Chen

M. K.

Shapiro

J. M.

(2007). Do harsher prison conditions reduce recidivism? A discontinuity-based approach. American Law and Economics Review, 9, 1-29.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections. (2008). Pennsylvania Department of Corrections policy statement: Community corrections centers. Mechanicsburg: Author. Retrieved from https://www.cor.pa.gov/About%20Us/Documents/DOC%20Policies/08.01.01%20Community%20Corrections%20Centers.pdf

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections. (2016a). Pennsylvania Department of Corrections monthly population report, as of July 31, 2016. Mechanicsburg: Author. Retrieved from http://www.cor.pa.gov/About%20Us/Statistics/Documents/Monthly%20Population%20Reports/Mtpop1607.pdf

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections. (2016b). Pennsylvania Department of Corrections 2015-2016 budget overview. Mechanicsburg: Author. Retrieved from http://www.cor.pa.gov/Documents/2015-2016%20DOC%20budget%20overview.pdf

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections. (2016c). What is community corrections? Mechanicsburg: Author. Retrieved from https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/CommunityCorrections/Documents/What%20is%20Community%20Corrections.pdf

10.

Connecticut General Assembly. (2001). Recidivism in Connecticut. Hartford: Office of Program Review and Investigations, Connecticut General Assembly. Retrieved from http://www.ct.gov/opm/lib/opm/cjppd/cjresearch/recidivismstudy/2001recidivisminconnecticut.pdf

11.

Council of State Governments Justice Center. (2014). Reducing recidivism: States deliver results. New York, NY: Author. https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/ReducingRecidivism_StatesDeliverResults.pdf

12.

Couzens

J. R.

(2011). Evidence-based practices: Reducing recidivism to increase public safety: A cooperative effort by the courts and probation. Sacramento: The Judicial Branch of California, California Courts. Retrieved from http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/EVIDENCE-BASED-PRACTICES-Summary-6-27-11.pdf

13.

Durose

M. R.

Cooper

A. D.

Snyder

H. N.

(2014). Recidivism of prisoners released in 30 states in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rprts05p0510.pdf

14.

Fabelo

Osher

F. C.

Thompson

(2007). Justice reinvestment: Increasing public safety and managing the growth of Pennsylvania’s prison population. New York, NY: Council of State Governments Justice Center.

15.

Farabee

Knight

(2002). A comparison of public and private prisons in Florida: During-and post-prison performance indicators. Los Angeles, CA: Query Research.

16.

Florida Department of Corrections. (2010). 2009 Florida prison recidivism study: Releases from 2001 to 2008. Tallahassee: Bureau of Research and Data Analysis, Florida Department of Corrections. Retrieved from http://www.dc.state.fl.us/secretary/press/2010/RecidivismStudy.pdf

17.

Gaes

(2008). Cost, performance studies look at prison privatization. National Institute of Justice Journal, 259, 32-36. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/221507.pdf

18.

Gaes

G. G.

(2010). The current status of prison privatization research on American prisons (Unpublished manuscript, Florida State University). Retrieved from http://www.antoniocasella.eu/nume/GAES_2010.pdf

19.

Herberman

E. J.

Bonczar

T. P.

(2014). Probation and parole in the United States, 2013. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ppus13.pdf

20.

Langan

P. A.

Levin

D. J.

(2002). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf

21.

Lanza-Kaduce

Maggard

(2001, October). The long-term recidivism of public and private prisoners. Paper presented at the National Conference of the Bureau of Justice Statistics and Justice Research and Statistics Association, New Orleans, LA.

22.

Lanza-Kaduce

Parker

K. F.

Thomas

C. W.

(1999). A comparative recidivism analysis of releasees from private and public prisons. Crime & Delinquency, 45, 28-47.

23.

Logan

C. H.

(1992). Well kept: Comparing quality of confinement in private and public prisons. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 83, 577-613.

24.

Logan

C. H.

(1996). Public vs. private prison management: A case comparison. Criminal Justice Review, 21, 62-85.

25.

Lowenkamp

C. T.

Latessa

E. J.

(2002). Evaluation of Ohio’s community based correctional facilities and halfway house programs: Final report (Unpublished manuscript, Center for Criminal Justice Research, Division of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati).

26.

Lundahl

B. W.

Kunz

Brownell

Harris

Van Vleet

(2009). Prison privatization: A meta-analysis of cost and quality of confinement indicators. Research on Social Work Practice, 19, 383-394.

27.

Marion

(2002). Community corrections in Ohio—Cost savings and program effectiveness. Akron, OH: The University of Akron. Retrieved from http://www.justicepolicy.org/research/2048

28.

McFarland

McGowan

O’Toole

(2002). Prisons, privatization, and public values (Unpublished manuscript, Cornell University). Retrieved from http://s3.amazonaws.com/mildredwarner.org/attachments/000/000/333/original/1f559214fcc33a4574ea2fac9630db16

29.

National Institute of Justice. (2008). Measuring recidivism. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism/pages/measuring.aspx

30.

Nichols

(2010, December). The pros and cons of privatizing government functions. Governing.

31.

Oklahoma Department of Corrections. (2014). Facts about Oklahoma prison recidivism.

32.

Perrone

Pratt

T. C.

(2003). Comparing the quality of confinement and cost-effectiveness of public versus private prisons: What we know, why we do not know more, and where to go from here. The Prison Journal, 83, 301-322.

33.

Petersilia

(1993). Performance measures for community corrections. In Performance measures for the criminal justice system (pp. 61-86). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.

34.

Petersilia

(2007). Meeting the challenges of rehabilitation in California’s prison and parole system: A report from the governor’s rehabilitation strike team. Sacramento, CA: Governor’s Office of Policy and Planning.

35.

Petersilia

(2011). Community corrections: Probation, parole, and prisoner reentry. In Wilson

J. Q.

Petersilia

(Eds.), Crime and public policy (pp. 499-531). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

36.

Pew Center on the States. (2008). Policy framework to strengthen community corrections. Washington, DC: The PEW Charitable Trusts. Retrieved from http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_assets/2008/policy20frameworkpdf.pdf

37.

Pratt

T. C.

Maahs

(1999). Are private prisons more cost-effective than public prisons? A meta-analysis of evaluation research studies. Crime & Delinquency, 45, 358-371.

38.

Shichor

(1995). Punishment for profit: Private prisons/public concerns. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

39.

Smith

Latessa

E. J.

Brusman-Lovins

Makarios

(2011, July). The importance of correctional program characteristics and their relationship to offender outcomes. Paper presented at the XXXII International Congress on Law and Mental Health, Berlin, Germany.

40.

Spivak

A. L.

Sharp

S. F.

(2008). Inmate recidivism as a measure of private prison performance. Crime & Delinquency, 54, 482-508.

41.

Stowell

J. I.

Byrne

J. M.

(2008). Does what happens in prison stay in prison? Examining the reciprocal relationship between community and prison culture. In Byrne

J. M.

Hummer

Taxman

F. S.

(Eds.), The culture of prison violence (pp. 27-39). Boston, MA: Pearson.

42.

Toohey

(2012, July 26). IBM blames city of Austin for ongoing billing problems, says it’s owed $4 million. Austin American-Statesman. Retrieved from http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/ibm-blames-city-of-austin-for-ongoing-billing-prob/nRqP5/