When Policies Conflict: Can Retributive State Policy Goals Be Met Effectively By Rehabilitative Alternative Sentencing Strategies*

Abstract

Programs do not exist in a vacuum; therefore program evaluations which ignore the outside influences that impact the program are in error. The community sentencing program discussed had a stated goal of rehabilitation yet was found to have predominantly retributive outcomes. Examination of the external influences impacting the program (state level policy and the judiciary) provided explanations for the apparent dysfunction between the program's stated goal of rehabilitation and its retributive outcomes. Both the funding agent (the state) and the judiciary viewed community sentencing as a method of making probation a more meaningful sanction. Once the program accepted the state funding, it was obligated to process the offenders the judiciary sent despite the obvious shift in correctional philosophy. As a rehabilitative program, the program failed to meet its stated goals; however, in the final analysis it was found that the program both successfully and cost-effectively met the funding agency's goal of retribution. The observed effects this shift in philosophy had upon the program counselors are briefly discussed.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allen, H. and C. Simonsen 1986 Corrections In America: An Introduction. New York: Macmillian.

Archambeault, W. and B. Archambeault 1982 Correctional Supervisory Management: Principles of Organization. Policy and Law. N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Bondi, C. 1989 Implementation of Community Service in the New River Valley . (Unpublished Thesis).

Carter, R. , J. Cocks , and D. Glazer 1987 Community service: A review of the basic issues . Federal Probation, 51: 4-10.

Duffee, D. 1989 Introduction. Journal Of Research In Crime And Delinquency, 26: 107-115.

Elmore, R. 1978 Organizational models of social program implementation . Public Policy, 26: 185-228.

Gendreau, P. and R. Ross 1987 Revivification of rehabilitation. Justice Quarterly, 4: 349-399.

Hagan, J. 1989 Why is there so little criminal justice theory? Neglected macro-and micro-level links between organization and power. Journal Of Research In Crime And Delinquency, 26: 116-135.

10.

Lawrence, R. 1985 Community-based corrections: Are they effective ? Corrections Today, 47: 108-109, 112.

11.

Lempert, R. 1989 Humility is a virtue: On the publicization of policy-relevant research. Law And Society Review, 23: 145-161.

12.

McSparron, J. 1980 Community correction and diversion: Costs and benefits, subsidy modes, and start-up recommendations. Crime And Deliquency , 26: 226-247.

13.

Musheno, M. , D. Palumbo , S. Maynard-Moody , and J. Levin 1989 Community corrections as an organizational innovation: What works and why. Journal Of Research In Crime And Deliquency , 26: 136-167.

14.

Palumbo, D. 1988 Public Policy in America: Government in Action. N.Y.: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

15.

Perrier, D. and S. Pink 1987 Community service: All things to all people. Federal Probation, 51: 32-38.

16.

Platt, T. 1987 U.S. criminal justice in the Reagan era: An assessment . Crime And Social Justice 29: 58-69.