Offender Perceptions of Graduated Sanctions

Abstract

Finding credible alternatives to revocation for offenders who violate the conditions of their community supervision has emerged as a salient issue in the corrections field. A number of jurisdictions have turned to graduated sanctions as an alternative to revocation. This study addresses one of the major gaps in the research on graduated sanctions by examining perceptions of graduated sanction severity through the administration of surveys to offenders under active supervision. Survey results revealed several important findings. First, offenders do not view jail as being substantially more punitive than community-based sanctions such as community service or electronic monitoring. Second, offenders viewed treatment-oriented sanctions as being more punitive than other graduated sanctions. Third, offender perceptions of graduated sanctions were influenced by a variety of individual characteristics such as gender, age, and education level.

Keywords

probation/parole violators graduated sanctions offender perceptions offender generated equivalencies

Introduction

The growth of the U.S. prison population has been well documented. In 1980, there were approximately 320,000 men and women incarcerated in state and federal prisons throughout the nation (Seiter, 2005). Today, that number has swelled to an estimated 1.5 million (Sabol, Minton, & Harrison, 2007). To combat the high cost of imprisonment, policy makers turned to community-based sentencing alternatives (Morris & Tonry, 1990; Petersilia, 1998), leading to tremendous growth in the community corrections population. Since 1980, the number of people under probation and parole supervision has more than tripled, with an estimated 4.9 million people under correctional supervision in the community in 2005 (Glaze & Bonzcar, 2006).

On the surface it might appear that community corrections has been successful in diverting large numbers of offenders from incarceration. Closer examination however reveals that this may not be the case. Over the past two and a half decades, the number of offenders sentenced to prison after having been unsuccessfully terminated from community supervision has increased dramatically. Travis and Lawrence (2002), for example, reported that in 1980, parole violators accounted for 17% of all new prison admissions; by 1999, that number had increased to 35%. In three states (California, Utah, and Louisiana), parole violators now account for more than half of all new prison admissions (Hughes, Wilson, & Beck, 2001). Similar trends have been recorded in the probation population as well (Glaze & Bonzcar, 2006). These statistics reveal that for a large percentage of offenders, placement in a community corrections program does not prevent prison admission but simply delays it.

In light of these facts, finding credible alternatives to revocation for offenders who violate the conditions of their community supervision has emerged as a salient issue in the corrections field. A policy option that has generated serious attention has been graduated sanctions.

Graduated Sanctions

The term graduated sanctions first began to appear in the corrections literature in the 1980s. Initially, it was used synonymously with intermediate sanctions to refer to a new breed of community-based correctional programs such as intensive supervision, day reporting, and home confinement (Taxman, Soule, & Gelb, 1999). Over time, however, the definition of graduated sanctions has evolved. Graduated sanctions no longer refers to a specific type of program but can be conceived of as an official response to noncompliant behavior for offenders who violate the conditions of their community supervision (Taxman et al., 1999). Responses to noncompliant behavior can vary depending on the frequency or seriousness of the behavior. These responses can range from community service hours for an offender who misses a counseling meeting to a short jail sentence or placement in an inpatient treatment program as a response to continued drug use.

Little research attention has focused on graduated sanctions, but existing studies generally support the efficacy of this intervention for increasing offender compliance. The strongest endorsement has come from the drug court literature. A common feature of the drug court model is the imposition of graduated sanctions for clients who relapse or violate other rules of the program (Belenko, 1998; General Accounting Office, 2005). Research suggests that the use of graduated sanctions has contributed to the success of drug courts (Belenko, 1998, 2001; General Accounting Office, 2005; Harrell, 1998). An evaluation of the Washington, D.C., Superior Drug Court, for example, found that defendants who were subject to sanctions were “more than three times as likely to be found drug free than those on the control docket” (Harrell, 1998, p. 2). Taken together, findings suggest graduated sanctions can be an effective tool for reducing offender noncompliance. More research is needed however to provide policy makers with the guidance necessary to utilize this intervention in an effective and efficient manner.

A particularly glaring gap in the research is an understanding of how offenders perceive the severity of graduated sanctions. An underlying principle of graduated sanctions is that the severity of the sanctions should reflect both the severity and frequency of the behavior (Taxman et al., 1999). In other words, the sanction imposed on an offender who submits his or her third positive urinalysis for methamphetamine should be more severe than the sanction imposed on the offender who misses an appointment with his or her probation officer.

Making determinations about sanction severity is many times straightforward. For example, 2 days in jail is obviously less severe than 5 days. These decisions become less clear however when community supervision officers have a wide range of sanctions at their disposal. Is 20 hours of community service more or less severe than 1 week of home confinement? Do offenders view the imposition of electronic monitoring (EM) as being more or less severe than a short stay in jail? This determination becomes even more complex when you consider that perceptions of severity likely vary among offenders. A 40-year-old offender with a job and family is likely to perceive the severity of sanctions differently than an 18-year-old who lives with his or her parents. In short, there is a need to better understand both how offenders perceive the severity of sanctions and how perceptions vary among offenders.

Prior Research on Perceptions of Punishment Severity

A substantial body of research has emerged in recent years concerning offender perceptions of punishment severity (Crouch, 1993; May & Wood, 2005; May, Wood, Mooney, & Minor, 2005; Petersilia & Deschenes, 1994; Spelman, 1995; Wood & Grasmick, 1999; Wood & May, 2003). This research has focused primarily on understanding how offenders perceive the severity of prison compared to alternative punishments such as probation or boot camp. Three themes emerge from this research. First, offenders do not necessarily view incarceration as being substantially more punitive than community-based sentencing alternatives (Crouch, 1993; Petersilia & Deschenes, 1994; Spelman, 1995; Wood & Grasmick, 1999). Wood and Grasmick’s (1999) study revealed that a significant proportion of incarcerated offenders would refuse to participate in any amount of alternative sanctions such as day fines, community service, and traditional probation to avoid serving time in prison. Similarly, Spelman’s (1995) study revealed that “75% of offenders rated one or more intermediate sanctions as more severe than an incarcerative sanction” (p. 107). These findings suggest that offenders do not view community-based sentencing alternatives as being less punitive than prison confinement.

The second theme emanating from this line of research involves the influence of individual characteristics on perceptions of punishment severity. A number of studies have examined how perceptions vary across individual characteristics, including gender, race/ethnicity, and age (Crouch, 1993; May et al., 2005; May & Wood, 2005; Petersilia & Deschenes, 1994; Spelman, 1995; Wood & Grasmick, 1999; Wood & May, 2003). These studies have produced several important findings. Several studies, for example, have observed racial differences in offender perceptions of punishment severity (Crouch, 1993; May et al., 2005; Spelman, 1995; Wood & May, 2003). More specifically, minority offenders were less likely than White offenders to view incarceration as being more punitive than community-based sanctions. Studies have also observed significant differences based on other individual characteristics such as age (Crouch, 1993; May et al., 2005; Spelman, 1995), gender (May et al., 2005; Wood & Grasmick, 1999), educational attainment (May & Wood, 2005), marital status (Crouch, 1993; Petersilia & Deschenes, 1994), and parental status (Petersilia & Deschenes, 1994). These studies have generally revealed that offenders who are older, male, less educated, single, and not parents are less likely to view incarceration as being substantially more punitive than community-based sentencing alternatives.

The final theme emerging from the existing research on offender perceptions of punishment severity involves the experiential effect of serving sanctions on perceptions of severity. Studies have discovered that offender perceptions of punishment severity vary based on individual experiences with serving sanctions (Crouch, 1993; May et al., 2005; May & Wood, 2005; Wood & Grasmick, 1999). Research has consistently revealed, for example, that offenders with increased prison experience view prison less punitively than individuals with less prison experience (Crouch, 1993; May et al., 2005; May & Wood, 2005; Wood & May, 2003). Offender experiences with alternative sanctions have also been found to influence perceptions of sanction severity, but the direction of this influence has been mixed (May & Wood, 2005; Wood & May, 2003). May and Wood (2005) for instance found that “those who had the most experience with a variety of intermediate sanctions would serve less time in probation and community service than offenders who had less experience with alterative sanctions” (p. 162), which suggests a positive relationship between exposure to alternative sanctions and perceptions of severity. Conversely, Wood and May (2003) found a negative relationship between experiences with alternative sanctions and perceptions of the severity of alternative sanctions. More specifically, their research revealed that offenders who had prior experience with electronic monitoring were “more likely to be willing to serve some duration of EM again than were those with no such experience” (Wood & May, 2003, p. 622).

The Current Study

Previous research findings suggest that offender perceptions of the severity of graduated sanctions will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the type of sanction imposed, the individual characteristics of the offenders, and their experiences with serving graduated sanctions. One must be careful however when generalizing these findings to offender perceptions of graduated sanctions. Previous research has focused primarily on offender perceptions of alternative or intermediate sanctions when compared to serving substantial amounts of time in prison. Graduated sanctions, by contrast, do not involve prison incarceration and are generally shorter in duration. It is conceivable that within this unique context, offender perceptions of sanction severity will differ from previous findings. Thus, the degree to which these findings can be applied to offender perceptions of graduated sanctions remains unknown. The current study attempts to address this gap in knowledge by exploring three research questions:

Research Question 1: How do offenders perceive the severity of a variety of commonly utilized graduated sanctions?

Research Question 2: Are perceptions of graduated sanctions influenced by individual characteristics of the offender?

Research Question 3: Do offenders’ previous experiences with serving graduated sanctions influence their perceptions of sanction severity?

Theoretical Foundations

Within the graduated sanctions literature, the theoretical model most commonly evoked (both implicitly and explicitly) in support of this policy response is deterrence. Advocates argue that offender compliance with release conditions can be enhanced through the application of penalties that are swift, certain, and appropriately severe (Parent, 1993; Reinventing Probation Council, 2000; Taxman et al., 1999). Punishing recalcitrant probationers and parolees is meant to act as both a specific and general deterrent. It is believed that offenders who are sanctioned for their noncompliance will abstain from the behavior in the future out of a desire to avoid future sanctions. At the same time, it will serve as an example to other offenders, motivating them to remain compliant with the conditions of their supervision.

Deterrence theory is premised on the belief that people are rational (Gibbs, 1975). This rationality guides individuals to make choices that reflect their self-interests. More specifically, individuals take actions that produce the maximum benefit with the least cost. Punishments are meant to reduce deviant conduct by increasing the costs associated with the behavior (Gibbs, 1975). Costs of punishment however are not universal and likely vary based on a variety of individual-level factors such as employment concerns, family considerations, and peer associations (Nagin, 1998). Thus, the key to understanding how offenders view the severity of graduated sanctions is to consider the costs associated with experiencing the punishment.

The realization that costs of punishment are not constant has two broad implications for the current study. First, it suggests that offenders’ perceptions of sanction severity will likely differ from conventionally held beliefs concerning the continuum of punishment. Traditional views regarding the severity of punishment are most often based on middle-class attitudes and values, which may not reflect the sentiments of offenders under community supervision. From a middle-class perspective, for instance, the costs of punishment are likely based on factors such as the effect of the sanction on the individual’s career, family, and reputation. These factors however may have little influence on an offender population that lacks the same ties to conventional society.

The second implication for the current research involves variations in perceptions of sanction severity among offenders. Costs of punishment will likely vary among offenders based on a variety of individual differences. Offenders who maintain full-time employment, for example, may view community-based punishments less severely than unemployed offenders because completing sanctions in the community decreases the cost of punishment by allowing them to maintain their job. Furthermore, offenders who have previously experienced a particular sanction may be in a better position to evaluate the costs associated with serving the sanction, which will likely alter their perceptions of sanction severity.

Data and Methodology

The data utilized for this research was obtained through the administration of surveys to offenders under active supervision in the Wyoming Department of Corrections’ Intensive Supervision Program (WDOC ISP). The WDOC ISP is a program reserved primarily for adult¹ felony-level offenders. The program accepts both probationers and parolees, and there are no restrictions based on gender or offense type. The WDOC ISP is designed to last approximately 1 year, during which time offenders progress through a series of three levels that vary in supervision intensity. While on ISP, they are subjected to intense supervision including frequent home visits, random drug testing, and electronic monitoring. Participants are expected to abide by a broad array of supervision conditions, including abstinence from drugs and alcohol, curfews, restrictions on visitors, and adherence to a weekly schedule.

A key component of the WDOC ISP is the use of graduated sanctions for offenders who violate the conditions of their release. These can include violations of the law (i.e., receiving a citation for shoplifting), violations of the ISP program agreement (i.e., violating curfew), and violations of the court order or parole grant (i.e., failure to pay restitution or fines). ISP personnel have a broad continuum of sanctions at their disposal, including written assignments, community service, and electronic monitoring. A remarkable feature of the graduated sanction program is the ability of community corrections staff to administer both community-based and institutional sanctions. Offenders can be sanctioned to county jail facilities for a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 30 days. In addition, ISP participants can be placed at one of the state’s three Adult Community Corrections (ACC) centers² for up to 60 days for violating program rules.

Survey Administration Procedures

Surveys were administered to ISP offenders under active supervision in the state’s four largest field offices located in Laramie, Natrona, Sheridan, and Sweetwater counties. Although caseload sizes fluctuate, these offices typically account for more than half of the state’s total ISP population, with average daily populations ranging between 170 and 180 offenders. Surveys were administered by the principal investigator in a small group setting (10 to 15 offenders). The small group setting was inappropriate for certain offenders, especially those who were illiterate or extremely low functioning. In these cases, surveys were verbally administered on an individual basis in a confidential location. Participation was considered voluntary. To increase participation, offenders were compensated $20 for completing the survey.

Measuring Perceptions of Sanction Severity

Several techniques have been developed to measure offender perceptions of punishment severity.³ The current research utilized a modified version of Wood and Grasmick’s (1999) offender generated equivalency method. This method measures perceptions of sanction severity by having respondents specify the amount of an alternative sanction they would be willing to complete to avoid serving a specified time of incarceration (Wood & Grasmick, 1999). The current study is concerned with understanding how ISP offenders view the severity of graduated sanctions. Thus, respondents were asked to generate equivalencies among a variety of sanctions commonly utilized in the WDOC ISP. First, offenders were given a description of the various sanctions, such as community service hours, program regression, and increased participation in inpatient or outpatient treatment⁴ (a full list of the sanctions and their descriptions is available in Appendix A). Second, respondents were presented with jail sanctions of varying lengths⁵ (2, 7, 14, 21, and 30 days). Finally, respondents were asked to specify the maximum amount of the alternative sanctions they would be willing to complete to avoid serving the various jail sentences (a copy of the survey instrument is located in Appendix B).

Findings

Description of Survey Sample

In all, 107 active ISP offenders agreed to participate in the survey. This number represents approximately 61% of offenders under ISP supervision in the four collection sites and 30% of the 356 offenders under active ISP supervision in the state of Wyoming during the month the survey was administered (May, 2007).⁶ Table 1 provides a detailed description of the survey respondents.

Table 1.

Description of Survey Sample: Demographic Characteristics.

	Mean	Median	Range	N	%
Age	31	29	18 to 65
Gender
Male				84	78.5
Female				23	21.5
Race/ethnicity
White				84	78.5
Hispanic				12	11.2
Native American				5	4.7
African American				4	3.7
Other				2	1.9
Marital status
Married				50	46.7
Not married				57	53.3
Parental status
Dependent child				64	59.8
No dependent child				43	40.2
Employment status
Full-time employed				91	85.0
Not full-time employed				16	15.0
Education
<High school graduate				22	20.6
>High school graduate/GED				85	79.4
Criminal history/offending characteristics					Number of prior convictions
7	5	0 to 39
Age first arrest	19	17	6 to 64
Average Time on Intensive Supervision Program (weeks)	27	24			Prior prison commitment
Yes				41	38.3
No				65	60.7
Current offense type
Property				41	39.4
Drug				28	26.9
Violent				14	13.5
Sex				14	13.5
Other				7	6.7
Release type
Probation				86	81.1
Parole				20	18.9
Total sample size				107^a

Due to missing data, not all variables equal 107.

Offender Perceptions of Graduated Sanctions

Table 2 displays the aggregate-level results of the offender generated equivalences. Presented in this table are two measures of central tendency, the mean and median, for each alternative sanction and corresponding jail sanction length. Minimum and maximum values are also provided for each response category. Although two measures of central tendency are provided, due to the nonnormal distribution of the offender generated equivalencies, the median rather than the mean is the primary statistic used to interpret the survey results.

Table 2.

Offender Perceptions of Sanction Severity.

	Alternative Sanction
Jail Sanction	Pages Written Assignment		Hours Outpatient Treatment		Days Electronic Monitoring		Hours Community Service		Days Program Regression		Days Community Corrections		Days Inpatient Treatment
2 days	Median	3	Median	2	Median	7	Median	6	Median	5	Median	2	Median	1
	Mean	6	Mean	3	Mean	12	Mean	10	Mean	7	Mean	3	Mean	3
	Range	0 to 100	Range	0 to 20	Range	0 to 100	Range	0 to 100	Range	0 to 30	Range	0 to 30	Range	0 to 60
7 days	Median	7	Median	5	Median	14	Median	14	Median	10	Median	7	Median	3
	Mean	14	Mean	6	Mean	20	Mean	23	Mean	14	Mean	7	Mean	6
	Range	0 to 150	Range	0 to 30	Range	0 to 100	Range	0 to 200	Range	0 to 60	Range	0 to 45	Range	0 to 60
14 days	Median	10	Median	7	Median	27	Median	20	Median	16	Median	14	Median	7
	Mean	20	Mean	9	Mean	31	Mean	38	Mean	22	Mean	14	Mean	12
	Range	0 to 200	Range	0 to 40	Range	0 to 140	Range	0 to 336	Range	0 to 90	Range	0 to 90	Range	0 to 90
21 days	Median	15	Median	10	Median	30	Median	25	Median	25	Median	21	Median	10
	Mean	29	Mean	13	Mean	43	Mean	54	Mean	31	Mean	21	Mean	17
	Range	0 to 400	Range	0 to 100	Range	0 to 210	Range	0 to 504	Range	0 to 150	Range	0 to 120	Range	0 to 120
30 days	Median	20	Median	12	Median	45	Median	40	Median	30	Median	30	Median	20
	Mean	40	Mean	16	Mean	59	Mean	72	Mean	40.5	Mean	30	Mean	25
	Range	0 to 500	Range	0 to 100	Range	0 to 300	Range	0 to 634	Range	0 to 300	Range	0 to 180	Range	0 to 180

An advantage of the offender generated equivalency method is the straightforward interpretation of the results. Table 2, for example, reveals that the median number of pages of written assignment offenders would be willing to complete to avoid serving a 2-day jail sanction is three pages. Stated another way, offenders viewed a three-page written assignment as roughly equivalent to a 2-day jail sanction. In addition, by focusing on the minimum and maximum values, we see large variation in the responses. At least one offender indicated that the maximum number of pages of a written assignment this individual would be willing to complete to avoid the 2-day jail sanction is zero, which can be interpreted to mean that even one page of written assignment is considered more punitive than serving 2 days in jail. At the other end of the continuum, at least one respondent indicated that he or she would be willing to complete a 100-page written assignment to avoid 2 days in jail.

Equivalency Ratios

A second alternative for presenting survey results is to convert the offender generated equivalencies into ratios. Equivalency ratios were calculated by dividing the median for each of the alternative sanctions by the length of the jail sanction used to generate the equivalency. The resulting figure can be conceived as the ratio of alternative sanction to jail sanction offenders were willing to complete to avoid jail sanctions of varying lengths. Equivalency ratios are presented in Table 3.

Table 3.

Offender Generated Equivalency Ratios.

	Alternative Sanction
Jail Sanction	Pages Written Assignment	Hours Outpatient Treatment	Days Electronic Monitoring	Hours Community Service	Days Program Regression	Days Community Corrections	Days Inpatient Treatment
2 days	1.5:1	1.0:1	3.5:1	3.0:1	2.5:1	1.0:1	0.5:1
7 days	1.0:1	0.64:1	2.0:1	2.0:1	1.4:1	1.0:1	0.43:1
14 days	0.7:1	0.5:1	1.9:1	1.4:1	1.1:1	1.0:1	0.5:1
21 days	0.7:1	0.5:1	1.4:1	1.2:1	1.2:1	0.9:1	0.48:1
30 days	0.7:1	0.4:1	1.5:1	1.3:1	1.0:1	1.0:1	0.67:1

Equivalency ratios can be directly interpreted. For instance, when considered against a 2-day jail sanction, offenders were willing to complete 1.5 pages of a written assignment per day in jail. However, when considered against a 14-day jail sanction, offenders were only willing to complete 0.7 pages of written assignment per day in jail. Focusing on hours of community service as another example, we can see that when considered against a 2-day jail sanction, offenders were willing to complete 3 hours of community service per day in jail but were only willing to complete 1.2 hours of community service per day in jail when considered against a 21-day jail sanction.

A primary advantage of converting survey results into equivalency ratios is the secondary information that can be gleaned from these conversions. Equivalency ratios, for example, provide valuable insight into how offenders view the severity of jail sanctions. For nearly all of the alternative sanctions presented (days of community corrections and days of inpatient treatment being the exceptions), we see a consistent pattern in the ratios as the length of the jail sanction increases. More specifically, we see that ratios decline substantially as the length of the jail sanction increases from 2 to 7 days and again as you move from 7 to 14 days. Once the 14-day jail sanction length is reached, however, we see the equivalency ratios begin to stabilize. Figure 1 provides a visual representation of this phenomenon using hours of community service as an example.

Figure 1.

Community Service Hours Equivalency Ratios.

This observed pattern suggests that the perceived severity of jail sanctions does not follow a linear trajectory. The fact that the ratio of alternative sanction to jail sanction decreases as the length of the jail sanction increases implies that offenders do not view 7 days in jail as being three and half times worse than 2 days or 14 days as being twice as bad as 7 days. If this were the case, equivalency ratios would remain constant. Instead, we see a pattern more consistent with a law of diminishing returns in which the punitive effect of jail decreases as the length of the sanction increases (Wood & Grasmick, 1999).

Influence of Offender Characteristics and Previous Sanction Experience

To address whether perceptions of sanction severity were influenced by offender characteristics or the experiential effects of serving the sanctions, a series of ordinary least squares regression models was employed. More specifically, models were estimated for each of the alternative sanctions, including written assignment, outpatient treatment, electronic monitoring, community service, program regression, community corrections, and inpatient treatment.

The dependent variable is a measure of offenders’ affinity for alternative sanctions as an alternative to spending time in jail. This variable synthesizes the offender generated equivalencies across the various jail sanction lengths and was created as follows. The offender generated equivalencies for each alternative sanction were regressed against the number of days of jail utilized to generate the responses (2, 7, 14, 21, and 30). Our affinity score is the slope coefficient, which represents the per unit increase in the alternative sanction offenders were willing to complete to avoid a 1-day increase in the length of jail sanction. Preliminary analyses revealed that offender responses were best modeled as relative rather than fixed changes, which required a log-transformation of the slope coefficients. Thus, the dependent variable can be conceived as the relative (i.e., percentage change) increase in the amount of the alternative sanction offenders were willing to complete to avoid a 1-day increase in the length of jail sanction.

Eight independent variables were considered: seven demographic variables (age, gender, race/ethnicity, marital status, parental status, education, and employment status) and an experiential variable that reflects whether the offender had previously experienced the graduated sanction. Best subsets analysis was utilized to identify the most powerful combination of predictor variables for each of the alternative sanctions. Interaction effects among the independent variables were also explored. Results of these analyses are presented in Table 4.

Table 4.

Influence of Individual Characteristics and Experiential Effects on Perceptions of Sanction Severity.

Alternative Sanction	β	Exp β	Significance
Outpatient treatment
Age (years)	–0.03	0.97	.005
Intercept	–0.24
Model R²/adjusted: .076/.067
Electronic monitoring
Marital (married)^a	0.57	1.77	.001
Intercept	0.03
Model R²/adjusted: .103/.094
Program regression
Education (<high school graduate)^a	0.54	1.71	.008
Intercept	–0.49
Model R²/adjusted: .070/.061
Community corrections
Education (<high school graduate)^a	1.06	2.88	.000
Gender (female)^a	0.65	1.91	.003
Intercept	–1.47
Model R²/adjusted: .298/.280
Inpatient treatment
Education (<high school graduate)^a	0.69	1.99	.001
Gender (female)^a	0.26	1.30	.227
Exp IT (no exp)^a	–0.33	0.72	.009
Exp IT × Gender^b	0.89	0.41	.036
Intercept	–1.01
Model R²/adjusted: .302/.261

Note. IT = Inpatient treatment.

Denotes reference category for dichotomous variable.

Denotes interaction term.

Before interpreting the findings included in Table 4, it is important to comment on what is absent. Three of the offender characteristic variables, race/ethnicity, parental status, and employment status, produced no significant findings in any of the regression models. Thus, there is no evidence from the current research to suggest that offender perceptions of sanction severity are influenced by these factors. It is also important to note that two alternative sanctions, community service and written assignment, are excluded from Table 4. Regression models revealed no significant relationships between any of the independent variables and the number of community service hours or pages of written assignment offenders were willing to complete to avoid serving time in jail.

Regression results revealed that offender perceptions of sanction severity are influenced by a variety of individual characteristics, including age, marital status, education, and gender. A negative relationship was observed between age and hours of outpatient treatment. More specifically, a 1-year increase in age corresponded with a 3% decline in the number of hours of outpatient treatment offenders were willing to complete to avoid serving an additional day in jail. There is also evidence to suggest that married offenders view the punitive effects of electronic monitoring more severely than single offenders. Unmarried offenders were willing to endure substantially (77%) more days of electronic monitoring than married offenders to avoid a 1-day increase in the length of the jail sanction.

Education level was the most consistent predictor variable in these analyses. Offenders who failed to achieve a high school diploma or GED viewed several of the alternative sanctions more harshly than those who have attained this level of education. High school graduates were willing to undergo more days of program regression and community corrections than nongraduates to avoid serving additional time in jail. Graduates were also willing to endure nearly twice as many days of inpatient treatment than nongraduates to avoid a 1-day extension in the length of the jail sanction.

There is evidence to suggest that female offenders view the punitive effects of community corrections and inpatient treatment more severely than men. Men were willing to complete nearly twice as many days in community corrections as women to avoid spending an additional day in jail. Gender also influenced offenders’ willingness to complete inpatient treatment. The presence of the interaction term however reveals that this effect was conditioned by whether the offender had previously completed inpatient treatment. Men who previously attended inpatient treatment were willing to complete approximately three times⁷ as many days of inpatient treatment than women who had also experienced inpatient treatment to avoid a 1-day increase in the length of jail sanction.

Discussion and Conclusions

The current study was guided by three research questions. The first question was concerned with understanding how offenders view the severity of a variety of commonly utilized graduated sanctions. Three prominent themes emerged from these results. The first involves how offenders view the severity of community-based sanctions in relation to jail sanctions. Jail sanctions are generally considered the most punitive option supervision agents possess for responding to offender noncompliance, whereas community-based sanctions such as written assignments, community service hours, and program regression are often reserved for lower risk violations. The results of the offender generated equivalencies however suggest that this does not accurately reflect offender perceptions of sanction severity. This is best illustrated by reviewing the equivalency ratios presented in Table 3. The largest ratio is the 3.5:1 ratio for days of electronic monitoring to avoid a 2-day jail sanction. Most others range between 1:1 and 2:1. These ratios highlight the fact that offenders do not necessarily view spending time in jail as being substantially more punitive than community-based sanctions.

The finding that offenders do not view jail sanctions as being substantially more punitive than community-based sanctions should not come as a surprise. Similar results have been reported in research focusing on offender perceptions of the severity of intermediate sanctions compared to spending time in prison (Crouch, 1993; Petersilia & Deschenes, 1994; Spelman, 1995; Wood & Grasmick, 1999). The reasons behind these findings however are not readily apparent. One possible explanation is that the punitive effect of spending time in jail has been greatly overestimated. Assumptions about the continuum of sanction severity are most likely made by persons who have never experienced the punishments firsthand. In addition, these assumptions are likely based on how experiencing the sanction would impact their lives, with little consideration for how their situations and values might differ from the offenders actually serving the sanctions. Jail, for example, might be thought of by those administering the sanctions as being more punitive than community-based sanctions because of the disruption it causes to employment and family life. This view however assumes that those most likely to experience the sanctions possess a similar level of commitment to career and family. In reality, many offenders under community supervision may view spending short durations in jail as a welcomed break to the stressors of maintaining employment and meeting family obligations.

A second potential explanation for this finding is that the punitive effect of community-based sanctions has been greatly underestimated. Completing community service hours or a written assignment for instance might sound somewhat frivolous compared to serving a jail sanction, but in reality both types of sanctions serve a similar end—taking time away from the offender. For example, requiring an offender to complete 40 hours of community service or a five-page written assignment in addition to the standard requirements of their supervision (i.e., employment and counseling requirements) will likely require more effort than spending time in jail and result in a greater reduction in the amount of time the offender is able to engage in activities they find enjoyable. Whereas for many offenders jail, although not necessarily considered pleasurable, might allow them to engage in certain pleasurable activities such as watching TV, spending time with friends, or simply doing nothing.

The second theme emerging from the offender generated equivalencies involves the perceived punitiveness of treatment-oriented sanctions. Offenders were asked to generate equivalencies for both attending additional hours of outpatient treatment and days of inpatient treatment. It is clear from their responses that they view these treatment-oriented responses more punitively than other types of graduated sanctions. This can be observed by focusing on the equivalency ratios presented in Table 3. The equivalency ratios for inpatient treatment, for example, hover around .5:1, which suggests that offenders view inpatient treatment as being roughly twice as punitive as jail. Stated differently, it would take 2 days in jail to equal the punitive effect of 1 day of inpatient treatment.

Understanding why offenders view treatment-oriented sanctions so punitively is not an easy task. One explanation might be the ongoing nature of treatment-oriented sanctions. Requiring an offender to attend an additional hour of treatment per week, for example, might not appear overly punitive on the surface, but if required to maintain this level of treatment throughout the duration of his or her supervision (i.e., several months or years), this could result in a substantial amount of time spent in treatment. Jail, by contrast, is a finite sanction, which can be completed in a matter of days or weeks. This finding might also be reflective of the perceived effort associated with completing the sanction. Both jail and inpatient treatment, for instance, are similar in that they require the offender to be removed from the community. Jail however might be considered a passive sanction in that it does not require the offender to put forth any particular effort. Inpatient treatment, by contrast, requires a great deal of active participation. This often involves several hours per day of individual and group counseling, as well as written assignments. Thus, the offender generated equivalencies might be reflective of offenders’ understanding of the effort required to successfully complete treatment-oriented sanctions.

The third theme involves how offenders view the severity of jail sanctions. As previously discussed, results indicate that the punitive effect of jail diminishes as the length of the jail sanction increases. The declining punitive effects of jail sanctions can likely be understood, at least in part, by considering the adverse collateral consequences brought on by the incarceration. A substantial body of literature has explored the unfavorable economic and social consequences experienced by prison inmates due to their removal from the community (see e.g., Mauer & Chesney-Lind, 2002). It is likely that offenders sentenced to jail sanctions experience some of the same effects, even though their removal from society is much briefer.

Spending even a few days in jail, for example, can impact an offender economically through reduced wages or lost employment. At the same time, placing an offender in jail might weaken already fragile family ties. Many of these adverse consequences do not necessarily worsen simply because the length of the sanction increases. The disapproval an offender experiences from a spouse or other family member for having to serve a jail sanction will likely be present regardless of whether the offender is sentenced to 2 or 20 days. At the same time, there is no reason to believe that an offender who loses his or her job after serving a 7-day jail sanction is any less distraught than the offender who loses his or her job after serving a 30-day jail sanction. Thus, the declining punitive effect of jail sanctions likely results, at least in part, from the collateral consequences that accompany this type of sanction regardless of the specific length.

Influence of Individual Characteristics and Prior Sanction Experience

The remaining two research questions focused on the influence of individual characteristics and prior sanction experience on offender perceptions of sanction severity. Research findings suggest that perceptions of sanction severity are moderated or enhanced by certain individual characteristics such as age, gender, and educational status.

Age

Age was found to influence offenders’ perceptions of the severity of outpatient treatment. More specifically, older offenders were willing to complete fewer hours of outpatient treatment than younger offenders to avoid serving additional time in jail, which suggests that older offenders view outpatient treatment more harshly. Understanding this finding is not an easy task. One might argue that older offenders have more experience serving time in incarceration and because of this experience view it less harshly than their younger counterparts (May & Wood, 2005). This is plausible but does not explain why the influence of age is limited to considerations of outpatient treatment and not other community-based sanctions. An alternative rationale is that older offenders are more set in their ways and less willing to confront their issues in a therapeutic environment. This explanation is consistent with some findings in the mental health and addictions literature suggesting older individuals are less accepting of seeking help for their mental health or substance abuse needs (Mojtabai, 2007).

Marital Status

Marital status was also found to influence perceptions of sanction severity, but only for the electronic monitoring sanction. Married offenders were willing to complete fewer days on EM to avoid additional time in jail than nonmarried offenders. Any explanation for this finding would be speculative at this time. What is clear however is that more research is needed to better understand the dynamics of this relationship.

Gender

Findings revealed that female offenders were willing to spend fewer days in community corrections than men to avoid serving additional time in jail. In addition, women who previously experienced inpatient treatment were willing to complete fewer hours of inpatient treatment than men who had also previously completed inpatient treatment to forgo an increase in the length of jail sanction. These findings imply that women view the punitive effects of these sanctions more severely than males. On the surface, this appears to contradict previous research, which has shown that women are more amenable to community-based sanctions (May & Wood, 2005). Closer examination however reveals that this is not necessarily the case.

May and Wood (2005) suggested that female preference for nonincarcerative punishment is likely related to the strengths of their ties to their families and communities. Female offenders, for example, are more likely than their male counterparts to be the primary caregiver for their dependent children (Mumola, 2000). Whereas community corrections and inpatient treatment may be considered less restrictive than incarceration, these sanctions still remove the offender from their immediate environment. Offenders who receive these sanctions are required to reside at these facilities and given only limited access to the community. In addition, placement in community corrections or inpatient treatment may result in greater isolation from children and other family members than serving time in jail. Visitation privileges at inpatient treatment and community corrections facilities are often more restrictive than what offenders experience in jail. At the same time, because of the rural nature of the state in which the study was conducted, offenders may have to travel outside their immediate community to gain access to these alternative sanctions, making it even more difficult to maintain family ties. Jail, by contrast, is readily available in most communities. Thus, the current findings likely reflect female offenders’ realization of these facts and their desire to maintain ties to their families and communities.

Education

Education was the most consistent individual characteristic variable in the analyses. Perceptions of the severity of program regression, community corrections, and inpatient treatment were all influenced by educational level. Furthermore, the direction of this relationship remained constant across the different types of sanctions. Offenders who had not completed their high school diploma or GED were willing to complete fewer units of the alternatives sanctions to avoid spending additional time in jail.

Education level might reflect an individual’s ties to conventional society (Drapela, 2006). The decision to complete high school rather than drop out, for example, suggests a stronger commitment to the traditionally valued rewards of higher educational attainment such as better employment opportunities. Thus, offenders who have completed this level of educational attainment may feel they have more to lose by serving a jail sanction. Offenders with higher levels of education might also be in a better position to look beyond the punitive effects of certain sanctions such as inpatient treatment and be willing to endure greater amounts of the sanction to achieve the rehabilitative benefits.

Experiential Effects

Research results provide little support for the assertion that perceptions of sanction severity are influenced by offenders’ prior experiences with serving the sanction. Only one experiential effect was observed. Female offenders who previously completed inpatient treatment were willing to complete fewer days of inpatient treatment than males who had also previously experienced the sanction. The lack of significant relationships for any of the other experiential variables indicates that offenders rely on factors other than their previous experiences when making determinations concerning the punitiveness of sanctions.

Limitations

The current study possesses certain limitations that must be considered. Two limitations seem especially salient. The first involves the representativeness of the survey sample. The study sample, while representative of ISP offenders in the state of Wyoming, may not be reflective of the national community corrections population. The sample, for instance, consisted of primarily White offenders (78.5%). National data however reveal that minority offenders make up approximately 45% of offender under probation supervision and approximately 60% of offenders on parole (Glaze & Bonzcar, 2006). In addition, available information suggests that a substantial portion of offenders under community supervision is concentrated in large urban areas (Lynch & Sabol, 2001). The study sample, by contrast, was drawn from a very rural state, which lacks the urban structure found in other jurisdictions. The degree to which these differences influenced study results is unclear, but it does suggest a reason to be cautious when generalizing results and a need to replicate this study in more diverse settings.

The second major limitation involves the exclusion of potentially important variables in the analyses exploring the influence of individual characteristics on perceptions of sanction severity. R² statistics from the regression models presented in Table 4 reveal a considerable amount of unexplained variance, which suggests the absence of key variables in the analyses. Family and social support, for example, have been found to influence offender success under community supervision (Martinez, 2006) and could potentially influence perceptions of sanction severity as well. In addition, the inclusion of attitudinal measures such as those incorporated in the research conducted by May and Wood (2005) might reduce the amount of unexplained variance. In short, future research should attempt to include more diverse variables to increase our knowledge of the factors that influence individual perceptions of sanction punitiveness.

Footnotes

Appendix A

Appendix B

Notes

Author Biographies

Eric J. Wodahl is an assistant professor of criminal justice at the University of Wyoming. His current research interests include community-based corrections, prisoner reentry, and rural issues in the criminal justice field.

Robbin Ogle is an associate professor and director of graduate studies for the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Nebraska Omaha. Her research interests include criminological theory, female criminality, and corrections.

Colleen Kadleck is an associate professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Nebraska Omaha. Her research interests focus primarily on policing and the use of quantitative methods. Currently her work is focusing on the systematic study of police unions and methodological and statistical issues in the measurement of agreement between raters.

Kenneth Gerow is professor of statistics at the University of Wyoming. His current research interests include applications of functional data analysis, bootstrapping for finite populations, and condition indices for fisheries science.

References

Belenko

(1998). Research on drug courts: A critical review. National Drug Court Institute Review, 1(1), 10-55.

Belenko

(2001). Research on drug courts: A critical review 2001 update. New York: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University.

Crouch

B. M.

(1993). Is incarceration really worse? Analysis of offenders’ preferences for prison over probation. Justice Quarterly, 10, 67-88.

Drapela

L. A.

(2006). Investigating the effects of family, peer, and school domains on postdropout drug use. Youth & Society, 37, 316-347.

General Accounting Office. (2005). Adult drug courts: Evidence indicates recidivism reduction and mixed results for other outcomes. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Office.

Gibbs

J. P.

(1975). Crime, punishment, and deterrence. New York: Elsevier Scientific.

Glaze

L. E.

Bonzcar

T. P.

(2006). Probation and parole in the United States, 2005. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Harrell

(1998). Drug courts and the role of graduated sanctions. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Hughes

Wilson

D. J.

Beck

A. J.

(2001). Trends in state parole, 1990-2000. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

10.

Lynch

J. P.

Sabol

W. J.

(2001). Prisoner reentry in perspective. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

11.

Martinez

D. J.

(2006). Informal helping mechanisms: Conceptual issues in family support of reentry of former prisoners. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 44, 23-37.

12.

Mauer

Chesney-Lind

(2002). Invisible punishment: The collateral consequences of mass imprisonment. New York: New Press.

13.

May

D. C.

Wood

P. B.

(2005). What influences offenders’ willingness to serve alternative sanctions? Prison Journal, 85, 145-167.

14.

May

D. C.

Wood

P. B.

Mooney

J. L.

Minor

K. I.

(2005). Predicting offender-generated exchange rates: Implications for a theory of sentence severity. Crime & Delinquency, 51, 373-399.

15.

Mojtabai

(2007). Americans’ attitudes toward mental health treatment seeking: 1990-2003. Psychiatric Services, 58, 642-651.

16.

Morris

Tonry

(1990). Between prison and probation: Intermediate punishments in a rational sentencing system. New York: Oxford University Press.

17.

Mumola

C. J.

(2000). Incarcerated parents and their children. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

18.

Nagin

D. S.

(1998). Criminal deterrence research at the outset of the twenty-first century. In Tonry

(Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of the research (Vol. 23, pp. 1-42). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

19.

Parent

(1993). Structuring policies to address sanctions for absconder and violators. In Rhine

E. E.

(Ed.), Reclaiming offenders accountability: Intermediate sanctions for probation and parole violators (pp. 7-15). Fredericksburg, VA: American Correctional Association.

20.

Petersilia

(1998). A decade of experimenting with intermediate sanctions: What have we learned? Federal Probation, 62(2), 3-10.

21.

Petersilia

Deschenes , (1994). Perceptions of punishment: Inmates and staff rank the severity of prison versus intermediate sanctions. Prison Journal, 74, 306-328.

22.

Reinventing Probation Council. (2000). Transforming probation through leadership: The “broken windows” model. Retrieved February 26, 2009, from http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/broken_windows.htm

23.

Sabol

W. J.

Minton

T. D.

Harrison

P. M.

(2007). Prison and jail inmates at midyear 2006. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

24.

Seiter

R. P.

(2005). Corrections: An introduction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

25.

Spelman

(1995). The severity of intermediate sanctions. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 32, 107-135.

26.

Taxman

F. S.

Soule

Gelb

(1999). Graduated sanctions: Stepping into accountable systems and offenders. Prison Journal, 79, 182-204.

27.

Travis

Lawrence

(2002). Beyond the prison gates: The state of parole in America. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

28.

Wood

P. B.

Grasmick

H. G.

(1999). Toward the development of punishment equivalencies: Male and female inmates rate the severity of alternative sanctions compared to prison. Justice Quarterly, 16, 19-50.

29.

Wood

P. B.

May

D. C.

(2003). Racial differences in perceptions of the severity of sanctions: A comparison of prison with alternatives. Justice Quarterly, 20, 605-631.