Show simple item record

The Effectiveness of Correctional Programs

dc.contributor.authorRobison, Jamesen_US
dc.contributor.authorSmith, Geralden_US
dc.date.accessioned2010-04-13T18:48:11Z
dc.date.available2010-04-13T18:48:11Z
dc.date.issued1971en_US
dc.identifier.citationRobison, James; Smith, Gerald (1971). "The Effectiveness of Correctional Programs." Crime & Delinquency 17(1): 67-80. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/66740>en_US
dc.identifier.issn0011-1287en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/66740
dc.description.abstractJustifications for the development of special correctional pro grams and for the choice of sentencing disposition for an individual offender are frequently based on claims of greater rehabilitative efficacy. While considerable evidence exists that some types of offenders have relatively more or less likelihood of recidivism than others, there is, as yet, almost no evidence that available correctional alternatives have any impact on those likelihoods. The article reviews findings from studies of correc tion in California for five critical choices in offender process ing : (1) imprisonment or probation, (2) length of stay in prison, (3) treatment program in prison, (4) intensity of parole or probation supervision, and (5) outright discharge from prison or release on parole. The authors conclude that variations in recidivism rates among these alternatives are, for the most part, attributable to initial differences among the types of offenders processed and that the remaining differences in violation rate between programs may be accounted for by differences in inter preting an event as a violation or in officially designating it as such. No evidence was found to support claims of superior re habilitative efficacy of one correctional alternative over another .en_US
dc.format.extent3108 bytes
dc.format.extent903437 bytes
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.publisherSage Publicationsen_US
dc.titleThe Effectiveness of Correctional Programsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelLaw and Legal Studiesen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelSociologyen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelGovernment, Politics and Lawen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelSocial Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumNCCD Research Center, Davis, Calif., Bay Area Research Unit, California Department of Corrections, Oakland, School of Criminology, University of California (Berkeley), University of California (Los Angeles), University of Michigan, University of California (Berkeley)en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Sociology, University of Utah, University of Louisville, University of California (Berkeley)en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/66740/2/10.1177_001112877101700108.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/001112877101700108en_US
dc.identifier.sourceCrime & Delinquencyen_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.