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.