U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OFF ICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS

BJA NI J OJJDP BJS OVC

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

National Institute of Justice

Jeremy Travis, Director December 1996

continued . . .

Work Release: Recidivism and

Corrections Costs in Washington State

by Susan Turner, Ph.D., and Joan Petersilia, Ph.D.

Issues and Findings

Discussed in this Brief: Two NIJsponsored evaluations of Washington State’s work release program,

conducted between 1991 and

1994. The first study analyzed a

cohort of 2,452 males released

from Washington prisons in 1990,

nearly 40 percent of whom spent a

part of their sentences on work release, to describe how work release operates and how successfully inmates perform in the program. The second compared the

recidivism of 218 offenders; approximately half participated in

work release and half completed

their sentences in prison.

Key issues: In contrast to the national decline of work release as a

means of preparing imprisoned offenders for reintegration into the

community, Washington has allocated more than one-third of its

community corrections budget to

work release. The releasees obtain

daytime jobs, live in community facilities, and contribute to their

room and board. Key issues explored in the studies were corrections costs, the consequences of

participants committing infractions

while on work release, and recidivism.

Key findings: The results of the

evaluation were mostly positive:

• Nearly a quarter of all prisoners

released in Washington made a

successful transition to the

community through work release.

Each year U.S. prisons release more than

400,000 criminal offenders to their communities. Most of those released will not

remain crime free, and national statistics

show that within 3 years of release, 40

percent will be returned to prison or jail.1

Experts debate the reasons for such high

recidivism rates, but all agree that the

lack of adequate job training and work

opportunities is a critical factor. Offenders often have few marketable skills and

training and, as a result, have a difficult

time securing legitimate employment.

With no legitimate income, many resort

to crime.

Since the early 1920s, corrections officials have attempted to remedy the problem through prison work release

programs. Work release programs permit

selected prisoners nearing the end of

their terms to work in the community, returning to prison facilities or community

residential facilities in nonworking hours.

Such programs are designed to prepare

inmates to return to the community in a

relatively controlled environment, while

they are learning how to work productively. Work release also allows inmates

to earn income, reimburse the State for

part of their confinement costs, build up

savings for their eventual full release,

and acquire more positive living habits.

During the 1970s prison work release

programs expanded considerably, but

they have declined in recent years. Although 43 States have existing statutes

authorizing work release, only about onethird of U.S. prisons report operating

such programs, and fewer than 3 percent

of U.S. inmates participate in them.2

Despite public disenchantment with

work release (see “Reasons for the Decline of Work Release”), the State of

Washington has maintained its commitment to the program since initiating it in

1967. The Washington work release program permits selected inmates to serve

the final 4 to 6 months of their prison

sentences in privately run, community

residential facilities, where they are required to be employed, submit to drug

testing, and abide by curfews and numerous program rules.

It is not that Washington has been immune

to the challenges faced by other States.

Washington’s prison population has

jumped 71 percent since 1980, while the

State’s general population has grown just

13 percent. Citizens are frustrated with

high levels of crime and violence, as is evidenced by their legislature’s enactment of

the Nation’s first “three strikes” law—in

part a reaction to a felon’s committing a
2

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Issues and Findings

continued . . .

• Less than 5 percent of the work

releasees committed new crimes

while on work release, 99 percent

of which were less serious property

offenses, such as forgery or theft.

However, with heightened supervision under strict conditions, many

work releasees incurred infractions

(most for rule violations and drug

possession), and a quarter returned

to prison. Thus, when one considers the reincarceration time spent

by work release “failures,” the

time under correctional supervision

was as long or longer for work

release participants as for nonparticipants. And there were no differences in corrections costs between

work releasees and inmates completing their full terms in prison.

Other findings indicated:

• Middle-aged offenders and offenders convicted of property

crimes were most likely to participate in work release. Hispanic offenders were less likely to go to

work release than white or black

offenders.

• Fifty-six percent of the 965 work

releasees in the cohort studied

were termed “successful”; they incurred no program infractions or

arrests. Another 13.5 percent were

“moderately successful”; their infractions were not serious enough

to return them to prison. Almost

30 percent were “unsuccessful”;

they returned to prison.

• Older offenders were more successful than younger ones, and

whites were more successful than

either Hispanics or blacks. Success

was also associated with having no

prior criminal record.

Target audience: State and local

officials and legislators, judges, and

researchers and practitioners in

community corrections.

rape while on parole. Observers have

wondered how the program can continue

to operate successfully when the emphasis is on punitive policies and politics.

This Research in Brief presents findings

from two studies of Washington’s work release program, conducted under a National

Institute of Justice (NIJ) grant between 1991

and 1994. In sponsoring the studies, NIJ

hoped that results might add to the growing

body of research on intermediate sanctions

and provide guidance to other States that

were looking for effective and less costly

corrections programs.3

Study 1 analyzed a cohort of all males released (n=2,452) from Washington prisons

in 1990. Data pertaining to their criminal

and social background and their participation and performance in work release were

analyzed to describe how work release was

implemented in Washington and how well

inmates performed in the program. Estimated costs of work release versus prison

were based on analysis not only of the cost

of the program but on costs incurred if the

work release participant was returned to

prison for violation of program rules or for

committing a crime.

ne reason work release programming

has declined pertains to funding. Many work

release programs begun in the 1970s were

paid for by the Federal Government using

funds from the Law Enforcement Assistance

Administration. When Federal funding

ceased, many programs were discontinued.

And as the rehabilitation ideal—of which

work release was very much a part—started

to fade, the public embraced imprisonment

as the only sure way to forestall crime. Programs that focused on rehabilitation, job

training, and transitional services seemed

hopelessly out of touch with the public.

Reasons for the Decline of Work Release

Moreover, a few highly publicized and sensational failures convinced the public that

early-release programs, such as work release

or furlough, threatened public safety. The

most extreme example was Willie Horton,

the Massachusetts inmate who absconded

and committed serious and violent crimes

while on furlough. (Horton was actually on

work furlough, not work release, but the

two terms are often used interchangeably.)

The case became an issue in the 1988 presidential campaign, and the negative publicity

helped further erode community support for

work release programs.

Study 2 evaluated the impact of work release on recidivism and on corrections

costs by comparing a sample of inmates

who participated in work release with a

comparable sample of inmates who completed their sentences in prison. Investigators collected information about program

implementation and recidivism at 6 and 12

months following the inmates’ assignment

to the study.

Overall, the studies found that the program

achieved its most important goal: preparing

inmates for final release and facilitating

their adjustment to the community. The

program did not cost the State more than it

would have if the releasees had remained

in prison. The public safety risks were

nearly nonexistent because almost no work

releasee committed new crimes, and when

they committed rule violations they were

quickly returned to prison.

While in the program these inmates maintained employment, paid room and board,

reconnected with their communities, and

most remained drug free. Less than 5 percent committed new crimes while on work

release, and 99 percent of those crimes

were less serious property offenses, such as

O
3

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

forgery and petty theft. Moreover, offenders who participated in work release

were somewhat less likely to be rearrested, but the results were not statistically significant. One could reasonably

conclude from these results that work release in Washington is a program “that

works.”

How Washington’s work

release program operates

Washington’s work release program,

created by legislative action in 1967,

gave the State permission to allow inmates to serve sentences in the community for the purpose of work training and

experience. In 1970 the first community-based program was established in

Seattle under a contract agreement with

Pioneer Cooperative, a private, nonprofit

corporation (now Pioneer Human Services—see “A Partnership With Private

Industry”).

Staffing and costs. The work release

program is the responsibility of the Division of Community Corrections within

the State Department of Corrections

(DOC). Division staff establish guidelines governing the selection of offenders for placement in work release, work

with contractors to provide food and

shelter in a halfway house arrangement,

and supervise the correctional officers

who are assigned to work release

facilities.

The actual operation of the work release

facilities is done on a contractual basis,

with contracts renegotiated every 2

years. DOC contracts with providers for

the buildings, plus the day-to-day activities, including staff, meals, shelter, inmate sign-in and sign-out procedures,

urinalysis, and job checks. Contracts are

negotiated on a per bed, per day basis,

regardless of whether the bed is actually

occupied. In 1992, at the time of the

study, the average work release contract

costs were between $32 and $35 per

day, per bed.

DOC contracts with 15 residential work

release facilities, which house more than

350 offenders (mostly adult males) on

any single day throughout the State. The

facilities can handle a range of approximately 15 to more than 100 residents,

but most accommodate between 20 and

40 inmates. Small numbers of beds are

available to female offenders and mentally ill or developmentally disabled

offenders.

A Partnership With Private Industry

ashington’s work release program

has benefited enormously from a particularly close working partnership with

private industry, particularly Pioneer Human Services (PHS). PHS has been contracting with DOC to operate work

release facilities since its inception nearly

30 years ago. It now operates 4 such

facilities, housing about 1,200 work

releasees annually (or about one-third of

all Washington’s work releasees). Over

W the years PHS has grown to a full-service

organization, providing job training at a

manufacturing facility it runs, prerelease

and postrelease employment in a food

service business it founded, housing for

offenders with special needs, and electronic monitoring of State and Federal offenders. PHS is highly regarded nationally

and in the State and was recognized by

former President Bush in 1992 as one of

the Nation’s “Points of Light.”

In the 1991–1993 biennium, approximately $115 million of the $312-million

DOC budget was allocated to community

corrections. About 38 percent (or $43

million) of the community corrections

budget was for work release.4 These

funds pay primarily for DOC staff to administer the statewide program and

monitor participants at the work release

centers.

Admission criteria and process.

Washington’s work release program is

governed by the stipulations set forth

in the Sentencing Reform Act (SRA) of

1981, which significantly altered the

State’s criminal sentencing practices

as well as the guidelines for work

release. The SRA stipulates that an

inmate may not enter work release

sooner than 6 months prior to discharge. The exact time depends on the

length of the offender’s original sentence. Inmates generally apply for

work release within 12 to 17 months

prior to their release date. The application is screened by the correctional

counselor, the unit supervisor, and

finally by the current DOC facility

superintendent.5

Inmates can apply for work release

only if:

• They have a minimum security

status.

• They have less than 2 years to serve

on their minimum term, including

anticipated good time credits.

• They have not been convicted of

rape in the first degree or, if so, are

beyond the first 3 years of confinement.

• They have not been convicted of

murder in the first degree or, if so,

have the written approval of the

Secretary of Corrections.
4

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Inmates who meet these initial screening criteria may be subsequently denied work release by DOC if (1) they

have exhibited assaultive behavior

while in prison, (2) the offender’s victim resides in the area, (3) the offender

has made threats to the victim during

incarceration, or (4) the offender has

two or more prior work release failures

during the current commitment.

Once DOC judges an offender eligible

for work release, the work release facilities’ Community Screening Board,

consisting of work release staff and

local citizens, must agree to accept

the inmate for admission to their local

work release center. In most cases the

Community Screening Board accepts

DOC’s recommendations.

Daily operations. After being accepted for a particular residential facility, inmates receive a set of

standard rules. These rules specify

that they are to abide by their work

plan, remain in the work release facility at all times except those approved

for work and other appointments, remain alcohol and drug free, be employed or have resources in order to

meet financial needs, report all earnings to DOC community corrections officers (CCOs), and obey all Federal,

State, and local laws.

Offenders must obtain gainful employment or training and must pay about $10

a day for room and board. Participants

are ultimately responsible for finding

work in the community, although CCOs

and staff provide referrals. Residents

also pay support to their families and

court-ordered restitution. The average

length of stay in the work release facility

is about 4 months but varies according

to the length of the original courtimposed sentence.

The CCOs work at the work release facilities a minimum of 8 hours a day.

Their primary role is to provide case

management services, which includes

providing informal advice and conducting intake interviews. For example, they review each client’s

progress as well as discuss personal

problems, such as substance abuse.

CCOs can require offenders to participate in special treatment or may initiate procedures for sending them back

to prison. Residents fill out “Offender

Schedule Plans” listing place of employment, immediate supervisor, and

rate of pay; CCOs check with employers to verify these facts.

Study 1: A statewide analysis

of work release

Study 1 was designed to answer the

following research questions:

• What are the characteristics of prisoners placed on work release? How

have these characteristics differed

from those of the general prison population?

• How many offenders placed on work

release have successfully completed

their programs? Why have some not

succeeded?

• What characteristics distinguish

those who have been successful from

those who have been unsuccessful on

work release?

• What are the costs associated with a

prison term that includes a work release sentence compared to those of a

prison sentence without work release?

The data for study 1 were supplied by

DOC research staff. They identified all

male inmates released from prison (to

the streets) during calendar year

1990.6 For each of the 2,452 offenders

in this cohort, background and criminal record information was obtained

from DOC’s computerized OffenderBased Tracking System (OBTS). OBTS

lists the inmate’s age, race, prior

criminal record, most serious conviction, sentence length imposed, and

date admitted and discharged from

DOC. It also records transfers to jail,

prerelease, and work release and work

release application and performance

information. To this information was

added more detailed data from DOC

files on the exact reason for return

(e.g., new crime, drug possession) for

work releasees who had been returned

to custody.

Study 1 findings

The data reveal that almost half (48.8

percent) of the inmates in the 1990

release cohort applied for work release

during their prison term, and 39.4

percent were placed in work release

facilities at some point during their

sentence.

An average of 7.1 months elapsed between the time an inmate was admitted

to prison and when he applied for work

release. Once the application was submitted, it took just over 3 weeks before

a decision was made to accept or reject him for the program. After an additional 56 days, the inmate actually

entered a work release facility; this

time was used to prepare the inmate

for work release and to locate a suitable and available residential placement. These inmates served an

average sentence of 15 months. With

an average application process of 10

months, the inmates spent approximately 5 months in work release.

Participant characteristics. One

would expect work release participants

to differ from the general prison popula-
5

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

tion since the law and DOC policies indicate that only certain offenses and offenders (generally the less serious) are

eligible. After meeting these legal standards, inmates are free to decide if they

want to apply for work release. Incentives to participate include the opportunity to live in the community, be closer

to family and friends, and obtain some

practical work experience. But some

inmates do not plan to be released to a

location where a work facility exists, and

some inmates judge the requirements

and closer supervision of work release

too bothersome. They choose instead to

serve out their full terms in prison.

Several background characteristics

distinguished inmates who did not

choose work release from those who

did:

• Younger and older inmates were less

likely than middle-aged inmates

to go to work release.

• Hispanics were less likely to go to

work release than either whites or

blacks.

• Inmates with no prior criminal

record were less likely to go to work

release.

• Inmates convicted of property offenses (burglary, theft, and forgery)

were the most likely to go to work

release.

At least one of these differences may

reflect the screening procedures for

work releases. For example, policies

deny work release to offenders convicted of certain violent offenses—

hence their lower representation in the

work release sample. There could be

another explanation for the finding

that inmates with no prior criminal

records were less likely to participate

in work release. These lower risk inmates had other program options for

decreasing their prison length of stay

(such as a “work ethic” camp for nonviolent offenders).

Although Hispanics were disproportionately underrepresented in the work

release cohort, this did not appear to

result from their having fewer of the

characteristics that would have made

them eligible. In fact, Hispanics were

overrepresented as drug offenders—

which indicates their representation

among work releasees should have

been much higher than observed. DOC

staff suggested one reason for fewerthan-expected Hispanics is that some

may have had Immigration and Naturalization Service detainers, making

them ineligible for work release.

Who was successful? Each inmate

was classified according to performance:

• Successful inmates were those who

completed work release without any

type of rule infraction or new crimes

having been noted in their official corrections record and who returned directly into the community from the

work release facility.

• Moderately successful inmates were

those who had committed an infraction

but one not judged serious enough to

remove them permanently from work

release.

• Unsuccessful inmates committed

some type of infraction, either a rule

violation or new criminal conduct, and

were returned to prison to serve out

the remainder of their term.

Of the 965 work releasees in the cohort,

544 (or 56 percent of participants) were

judged successful in work release. If

one considers that nearly 40 percent of

the original cohort were placed on work

release to begin with, and that about

two-thirds succeeded, it is clear that almost one out of four inmates in Washington made a successful transition to

the community through work release.

An additional 131 inmates (or 13.5

percent of participants) were moderately successful, and 290 inmates (or

30 percent of participants) were

judged unsuccessful in work release

and were returned to prison to complete their terms.

The most frequent reasons for return to

prison from work release were failure

to abide by curfews or absconding

from the program, drug possession,

and other program rule infractions (see

exhibit 1). New crimes or law violations accounted for a very small percentage (3.6 percent) of those

returned. In fact, in the entire cohort

of 965 work releasees studied, records

indicate that no offender committed a

violent felony while in the program:

the few crimes committed were thefts

and forgeries. These findings suggest

that Washington’s work release program poses very little risk to the surrounding community.

Predicting success. Variables indicating race, education level, occupation before imprisonment, marital

status, employment status at arrest,

previous work stability, conviction offense type, prior criminal record, substance abuse dependency, and length

of current sentence were each crosstabulated with the three success-level

variables, revealing that:

• Older offenders were more successful at work release than younger

offenders.

• Whites were more successful than

Hispanics and blacks. More than 40

percent of Hispanic and black work
6

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Exhibit 1: Most Serious Infraction for “Unsuccessful” Work Release

Participants

Reason for Return Percent of 290 Offenders

Law Violation 3.6

 Forgery 0.7

 Theft 1.4

 Other, unspecified 1.5

Medical Condition 3.6

Drug Possession 34.9

Program Rule Violation 57.8

 Alcohol possession 12.2

 Escape/curfew 20.1

 Fighting 3.2

 Failure to work 4.3

 Failure to report income 2.5

 Miscellaneous 15.5

releasees were returned to prison compared with 25 percent of white

offenders.

• Offenders with no prior criminal

record were more successful than

those with a prior record. Almost twothirds of inmates with no prior record

were successful compared with fewer

than half the offenders with a prior

conviction.

• Offenders convicted of person

crimes (e.g., robbery and assault) were

more successful than offenders convicted of property or drug crimes.7

Comparing work release costs

with prison costs. A recent survey of

prison administrators reported that,

while they recognized the rehabilitative potential of work release, they

were most interested in using work release to reduce prison crowding and

associated costs.8

 Community-based

facilities are much less expensive to

operate than prisons, and so allowing

inmates to serve the last several

months of their prison sentence in the

community can reduce corrections

costs. According to national estimates,

for example, work release costs about

$34 a day, and prison costs $54 a day

(operational costs only).9

 In addition,

inmates who work can be required to

help pay for their room and board,

support their families, and pay taxes.

Unfortunately, the cost savings accrued

through work release and other community-based programs have not been

as substantial as proponents had hoped.

For example, Minnesota recently implemented an Intensive Supervision Program designed to release prisoners early

from prison on the condition that they

participate in an enhanced community

supervision program. Fewer offenders

than expected actually participated in

early release, reducing the potential for

large cost savings. Similar results have

been seen in New Jersey, Florida, Arizona, Texas, and Oregon.10

It is therefore clear that communitybased sanctions are not necessarily

less expensive than prison. It all depends on how offenders behave in the

program and how program administrators choose to punish infractions (particularly drug use). If infractions and

rule violations are punished with incarceration, initial cost savings are reduced or eliminated as a result of the

additional dollars required to incarcerate program failures. In effect, close

surveillance may end up generating

many program failures who are eventually returned to prison. In that case,

the State incurs the cost of their work

release program in addition to eventual reuse of a prison cell. The community-based sanction may actually

end up costing more than a single term

of incarceration uninterrupted by work

release. Previous work release evaluations have not provided a complete accounting of total costs, which at a

minimum must include the cost of rehousing unsuccessful work release offenders in jail or prison.

For each of the 2,452 inmates in the

work release cohort, files on their movements since coming to prison were available. The data made it possible to record

how much time each inmate spent in

work release and nonwork release institutions as well as in local jails.

DOC then provided statewide estimates of the daily cost of different

sanctions; by combining this information, researchers were able to calculate

the average cost of a prison sentence

that included work release and one

that did not (see exhibit 2).

When all incarceration time served is

taken into account, inmates who participated in work release served, on

average, about 4 months less time in a

prison or prerelease facility than inmates who did not participate. However, for every 3 days in work release,

offenders spend about 1 day back in

an institution—either prison or a

prerelease center.

Exhibit 2 suggests that inmates who participated in work release cost the State
7

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Exhibit 2: Costs of Prison Sentence That Includes Work Release vs. Prison

Without Work Release

Program Type Prison Without Prison With

Work Release Work Release

Daily Average Average

Cost Number of Cost Number of Cost

Days Days

Before Work Release

 Prison $68.60 440 $30,185 240 $16,464

 Prerelease $50.36 11 $ 554 48 $ 2,417

 Jail $51.00 1 $ 51 0 0

After Work Release

 Prison $68.60 — — 25 $ 1,715

 Prerelease $50.36 — — 11 $ 554

 Work release $48.07 — — 104 $ 4,999

 Jail $51.00 — — 5 $ 255

Total Costs $30,790 $26,404

Note: Prison, prerelease, and work release costs are averages of 1991–1992 and 1992–

1993 costs. For jail costs, $51/day is the figure that would be charged to an outside contractor for a jail bed in King County, Washington (the largest county). Work release costs

reflect “recovery” costs of inmates’ room and board payments.

about $4,000 less than inmates who did

not. However, the cost comparison does

not account for crime and background

differences between work releasees and

nonwork releasees, which have already

been shown to be considerable. It is

known that nonwork releasees were, on

average, convicted of more serious

crimes. As such, one would expect that

they would serve longer prison terms

and cost the State more as a result. To

make credible cost comparisons among

sanctions, one must compare offenders

who are similar in background characteristics and conviction crimes. Study 2

was designed to do exactly that.

Study 2: The impact of work

release on recidivism and on

corrections costs

This evaluation of the effects of work

release was designed as an experiment

in which eligible offenders were to be

randomly assigned to participate or not

to participate in work release. In a randomized experiment, one has more

confidence that any observed differences result from participating in work

release rather than from preexisting

background differences.

The experiment was conducted in Seattle, which is Washington’s largest city

and home to more than 50 percent of

the work release offenders. The study

had the full cooperation of the Washington DOC, the DOC Community Corrections Division, and the various

managers of the six individual work release facilities serving males in Seattle.

Identifying the sample. The study

required a fairly large sample size in

order to detect the relatively small outcome differences that were expected

between experimental and control offenders. Based on prior evaluations, it

was estimated that the work release effects (e.g., recidivism reduction) would

not be large, with perhaps 10- to 20-percent differences between experimental

and controls. Procedures were devised

that would yield expected sample sizes

of several hundred offenders during the

time frame of the study.

Offenders who were deemed eligible

for work release by DOC were randomly assigned to either the experimental group (who progressed toward

work release using normal procedures)

or the control group (who were removed from the work release eligibility

list and remained in prison to complete their full prison terms).

To avoid seriously disrupting the flow

of inmates into Seattle work release facilities, investigators assigned 1 out of

every 10 eligible inmates to the control

group and 1 to the experimental group.

The remaining 8 eligible offenders did

not participate in the study but instead

maintained their status on the waiting

list and were handled according to

normal DOC operating procedures.

Based on analysis of available DOC

data, these procedures were estimated

to yield approximately 200 study offenders a year.

However, the flow of offenders entering the DOC pool of work release “eligibles” was too slow to permit reaching

an adequate sample size during the

study’s assignment period. A year after

the random assignment procedures

were put in place, only 125 offenders

had been assigned to the study. It is

unclear why the inmate flow did not

meet expectations, but DOC officials

suggest it resulted from fewer applications to the program (not from rejecting

more applicants).

To increase the study’s sample size,

researchers supplemented the randomized assignment with offenders who

during the study period had been part

of the 8 out of every 10 offenders who

were not included in the initial randomized assignment procedures.

Forty-eight offenders were randomly

selected from this initial pool of work

release eligibles and placed in the ex-
8

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

perimental study group. In addition,

DOC identified 45 additional control

offenders who for reasons unrelated to

eligibility criteria had not actually participated in work release prior to their

release from prison, primarily because

they had “maxed out” on their sentences before all the administrative

procedures had been completed or

work release beds had become available. These offenders were used to

supplement the control group. Thus,

the final sample totaled 218 offenders,

of whom 125 had been randomly assigned to the study and an additional

93 had been chosen as a matched

comparison group.11

Data collection. For each of the 218

study participants, a number of data

collection forms were completed by

the researchers’ onsite staff. The background review captured information

about the inmate’s demographics (e.g.,

age, race, education, marital status),

prior employment history, drug use information, current offense information,

and prior criminal history.

At 6 months and again at 12 months after

assignment, a series of other forms were

completed that recorded such information as time spent in different institutions

and work release centers, contacts made

and services received, and the number of

days on postdischarge status. Finally, recidivism information was obtained for

each offender based on State-level criminal history “rap sheets.” The date, nature

of arrest, disposition, and sentence were

recorded for each offense occurring

during the 1-year followup period after

study assignment.

Characteristics of the Seattle

sample

The Seattle sample closely resembled

the statewide sample, which was to be

expected since about one-third of

Washington’s DOC population comes

from the Seattle area. As shown in exhibit 3, the study work release offenders averaged about 30 years of age.

About half of the offenders in the

sample were white, and 43 percent

were black. More than half of the

sample were convicted of drug offenses, and 84 percent were classified

as dependent on alcohol, with almost

three-quarters dependent on cocaine.

About two-thirds of the offenders in

the sample had never worked or had

worked only occasionally (6.2 percent

and almost 60 percent, respectively).

One can see that the characteristics of

work release participants were not significantly different from those of

nonwork release participants, except

in three instances: number of prior arrests, occupational history, and type of

current offense. This suggests that the

randomization and matching strategy

used was successful in that it was desired that the two groups be similar in

background characteristics so that any

observed differences in recidivism

could be attributed to participation in

work release.12

Work release program

activities

The investigators sought to learn what

actually transpired when offenders

were placed in work release. What

kinds of jobs did they get, and what

types of monitoring activities were imposed? How well did inmates perform,

and how long did they stay in the program? To answer those questions, the

work release offenders were “followed”

into their individual site placements,

and information was coded about the

kinds of jobs they obtained, how much

money they earned, the number of

times they were seen by CCOs, how often they were tested for drugs, and the

kinds of rehabilitation programs they

participated in.

As expected, most of the program’s focus was on obtaining a job. In fact, if

offenders did not have a job within the

first few weeks, they might be returned

to the institution. Generally, offenders

had one or two jobs during their 3- to

4-month work release stay. Many more

interviews were attempted with employers than were actually completed. The

analysis of offenders’ first jobs showed

that most were either in the restaurant

or construction industries, with a median pay of $8 an hour. More than half

of the offenders were still working at

their first jobs when they left work release (discharged from DOC or placed

on postrelease supervision) or when the

review of their files was completed.

Work releasees were tested for drugs

at the work release facility an average

of once a month. The tests revealed

very low percentages of drug use. Only

8 percent of work release participants

tested positive for drugs, usually for

cocaine. On average, work releasees

participated in outpatient drug and alcohol counseling sessions (usually Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics

Anonymous meetings) about once every 2 months. In addition, they had

face-to-face meetings with their CCO

about once a week.

Recidivism outcomes during

12-month followup

It is generally believed that recidivism

rates are the key factor in determining

the effectiveness of work release. This

study included a 1-year followup period, which began at the point of random assignment. Work releasees were

not immediately placed in the community following random assignment,
9

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Exhibit 3: Characteristics of Control vs. Experimental Work Release Sample

Control Experimental

(N=106) (N=112)

(Percent) (Percent)

Average Age (years) 31.4 30.4

Race

 White 63.2 49.6

 Black 30.2 43.2

 Hispanic 3.8 1.8

 Other 2.8 5.4

Educationa

 High school 45.9 48.4

 High school graduate 39.3 48.4

 Posthigh school

graduate 13.1 3.1

Occupationa

 Clerical/sales/teacher 4.6 4.7

 Service 13.1 14.1

 Skilled labor 26.2 25.0

 Semiskilled 13.1 17.2

 Unskilled 19.7 31.2

Marital Statusa

 Single 62.3 67.2

 Married 18.0 6.2

 Divorced/separated 16.4 23.4

Employed at Time of Arresta

 Yes 34.4 25.0

Work Stabilitya,b

 Never worked 16.4b 6.2

 Occasionally 36.1 59.4

 About half the time 4.9 10.9

 Worked most of the time 16.4 9.4

 Continuous employment 21.3 9.4

 Unknown 4.9 4.0

Most Serious Current Offenseb

 Homicide 2.9 3.6

 Rape/sex 16.2 1.8

 Robbery 5.7 12.6

 Assault 7.6 8.1

 Burglary 24.8 15.3

 Theft 11.4 8.1

 Drugs 31.4 50.4

 Other 0.0 0.0

Average Sentence Length (months) (months)

25.5 18.0

Average Number of (number) (number)

 Prior arrestsb 7.2 4.5

 Prior felony convictions 2.8 2.4

 Prior miscellaneous

convictions 2.9 2.1

 Prior jail terms 2.3 2.1

 Prior prison terms 0.9 0.5

 Prior adult person criminal

convictions 0.3 0.3

 Prior adult drug

convictions 0.5 0.5

 Prior adult property

convictions 1.7 1.4

 Prior adult other

convictions 1.0 1.0

Dependency ona

 Alcohol 78.7 84.4

 Marijuana 62.3 70.3

 LSD 3.3 7.8

 Amphetamines 1.6 1.6

 Cocaine 59.0 73.4

 Crack 29.5 28.1

 Heroin 16.4 12.5

Participated in Drug Treatmenta

 Yes 67.2 68.8

a Indicates data were available for randomly assigned subjects only. b Indicates controls and experimentals were significantly different at p<.05. Chi-square tests were used for

categorical variables; t-tests were used for continuous variables.

since several weeks often passed between approval for the program and

actual transfer to the work release facility. Thus, the 12-month followup included an average of 2 months initial

time in an institution, followed by an

average of 10 months in the community

for work release study offenders. During

the followup period, control offenders

were “on the street” an average of just

under 7 months after being released

from prison.

Investigators obtained each offender’s

State rap sheet and recorded all arrests

(felony and misdemeanor), convictions,

and incarcerations occurring during the

followup period. Information on infractions during work release and prison was

obtained from the DOC OBTS computer

and work release folders. Events that

occurred while the offender was in

prison or on work release were separated

from events that occurred afterward (including postdischarge).

The results (see exhibit 4) show significant differences. Infractions (mostly rule

violations and drug possession and use)

were recorded for 58 percent of work

releasees but for only 4.7 percent of

nonwork releasees. As a result, about a

quarter of all work releasees were returned to prison, compared to 1 percent

of nonwork releasees. However, when

looking at infractions while offenders

were in an institution, one finds that

nonwork releasees incurred significantly

more infractions during their time in

prison. When one adds together infractions during work release and while in

prison (in analyses not reported in exhibit 4), work release offenders were

twice as likely to incur a violation when

compared to nonwork releasees (67.3

percent versus 33.6 percent).

In terms of new crimes, although work

releasees were less likely to be arrested
10

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Exhibit 4: Recidivism During 1-Year Followup for Study 2 Participants

Control Experimental

(N=106) (N=112)

(Percent) (Percent)

In-Prison Infractions

 Any infraction 29.8* 11.8

 Assault/sex crime 5.8* 0.9

 Weapon possession 1.0 0.0

 Possession of drugs,

alcohol 3.8 3.6

 Rules 17.3* 5.4

Work Release Infractions

 Any infraction 4.7* 58.0

 Assault/sex crimes 0.0 0.0

 Weapon possession 0.0 0.0

 Possession of drugs,

alcohol 1.0* 18.8

 Escape 0.0 8.9

 Rules 2.8* 42.3

Sanctions for Infractions

 Jail pending a hearing 1.0 1.8

 Returned to prison 1.0* 25.9

Arrests During Work Release

 Any arrest 0.0 2.7

 Homicide/rape 0.0 0.0

 Assault 0.0 0.0

 Robbery 0.0 0.9

 Theft 0.0 0.9

 Drugs 0.0 0.9

Arrests After Release

 Any arrest 30.2 22.3

 Homicide/rape 0.0 0.0

 Assault 8.5 2.7

 Robbery 0.9 1.8

 Burglary 3.8 2.7

 Theft 3.8 7.1

 Drugs 7.6 8.9

Sanctions for Arrests

 Any conviction 7.6 7.1

 Any jail 0.0* 3.4

 Any prison 4.7 3.6

* Indicates control and experimental groups were significantly different at p<.05 using

chi-square tests.

during the followup period, the difference was not statistically significant. As

in study 1, a very small percentage of

work releasees were arrested for new

crimes while on work release (less than

3 percent). By the end of the 1-year

followup period, which included an

average of about 3 months after discharge from DOC, 30 percent of

nonwork releasees (controls) had been

arrested, compared to 22 percent of

work releasees (experimentals). As a

result, about 4 percent of both groups

were returned to prison for a new crime

during the year.

Overall, if one combines all the returns to prison (for either a rule infraction or new crime), one finds that 29.5

percent of work releasees were returned to prison during the 1-year

followup, compared to 5.7 percent for

nonwork release participants.

The returns to prison were mostly for

short stays, however. By the end of the

1-year followup period, 71.4 percent of

control offenders and 52.7 percent of

experimental offenders had been discharged. Nine percent of work release

participants were institutionalized,

contrasted with 2.9 percent of controls,

a marginally significant difference.

These differences suggest that the

length of time under correctional supervision may actually have been

longer for those participating in work

release.

Costs of work release

versus prison

Is work release less expensive than serving a complete term in prison? To answer

this question, one must determine the

relevant period of time for which costs

are to be estimated. Since about 26 percent of work releasees were returned to

prison as a result of a work release infraction, the costs of rehousing them in

prison needed to be considered in the

overall cost calculation.

If one considers only costs before the inmates either leave prison or work release

for the first time, one ignores “reprocessing” for offenders who are returned to

prison from work release facilities or the

community. However, if one wants to include costs following first release, one

must make some decision about how far

in the future to extend the window for

analysis. Not all the study offenders

were discharged during the study time

period; thus, one cannot estimate costs

for the entire sentence served in the institution plus time in the community before discharge for all offenders. The

analysis reflects the costs associated
11

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Exhibit 5: Study 2 Work Release vs. Prison Costs, for Initial Sentence and 1

Year After Assignment to Study

Daily Control Experimental

Cost

Average Average

Number of Cost Number of Cost

Days Days

Before First Release

to Community

 Prison $68.60 290 $19,894 240 $16,464

 Prerelease $50.36 95 $ 4,784 48 $ 2,417

 Work release $48.07 6 $ 288 88 $ 4,230

After Release

(i.e., reprocessing cost)

 Prison $68.60 3 $ 206 29 $ 1,989

 Prerelease $50.36 2 $ 101 7 $ 353

 Work release $48.07 1 $ 48 5 $ 240

 Community custody

inmate $ 2.03 55 $ 112 80 $ 162

 Postrelease

supervision $ 2.03 30 $ 61 14 $ 28

 Discharge 0 108 0 80 0

Totals 592 $25,494 592 $25,883

Note: For controls, “after release” refers to the followup time after an offender first

leaves his initial prison term and returns “to the street.” For experimentals, “after release”

refers to the followup time after an offender first leaves his first placement in a work release facility and returns either “to the street” or back to an institution.

with completed sentences for 70 percent of controls and 50 percent of

experimentals.

Washington corrections officials furnished the daily cost of each of the correctional programs, making it possible to

compute the total costs of supervising

each inmate during the initial sentence

and the followup period. By averaging

these cost estimates across inmates in

the control and experimental groups,

one can compare the costs of a prison

term that includes work release to one

that does not.

The analysis (see exhibit 5) shows basically no difference in costs between

work releasees and inmates completing

their full terms in prison. If one considers the costs associated with work release from the time an inmate was

admitted to prison until his discharge,

the estimated cost would average

$25,883 per inmate. This is in contrast

to the estimated $25,494 it would have

cost per inmate, on average, to serve out

his time in prison.

The two studies thus produced similar

findings regarding the costs of work release. Other findings related to success,

failure, and recidivism lead to several

conclusions.

Who is successful on

work release?

Although work release might not reduce

the overall recidivism rates of participants, there may be subgroups for whom

the program could produce more successful outcomes. Similar to the analysis in study 1, an attempt was made to

identify factors that were related to

three recidivism outcomes: any infraction during work release; any arrest

during the 1-year followup; and any

return to prison (as a result of infraction or arrest) during the 1-year

followup. A number of background

characteristics of offenders were considered, such as age, race, education,

prior employment, drug involvement,

and current offense.

It was not possible to find characteristics

of offenders, or a profile of an offender,

who appeared to do better on work release than in prison. However, a few

characteristics were related to success,

regardless of condition. For example, offenders with a prior history of cocaine or

crack dependence were more likely to

have committed an infraction than others; those whose most serious current offense was for a theft charge were more

likely to be rearrested; and white offenders were less likely than others to commit an infraction.

Summary and conclusions

Washington’s work release program

has been successful on several fronts:

nearly a quarter of all prisoners released in Washington under current

statutes made a successful transition to

the community through work release.

While in the program, these inmates

maintained employment, reconnected

with their local communities, paid for

their room and board, and most remained drug free. Given that in most

States fewer than 5 percent of prisoners even participate in work release,

this is quite an accomplishment.

However, the work release program

did not reduce offender recidivism

rates or corrections costs. Critics of

community corrections often argue that

such programs should deliver all of the

above services while showing a reduction in recidivism and costs. Such ex-
12

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

pectations are unrealistic. Prison programs should not assume the goals and

functions of other social institutions

such as schools and welfare agencies.13

Realistic measures of corrections programs’ effectiveness should account

for daily activities and the constraints

under which the programs operate.

Realism, however, does not mean easy

to achieve. Most participants in

Washington’s work release program

had lengthy criminal histories, serious

substance abuse problems, and possessed limited education and job

skills. Yet, when supervised in this

work release program, they found jobs,

paid rent, and refrained from crime.

Although most corrections evaluations

adopt recidivism as their primary outcome measure, few corrections officials

believe that what they do chiefly determines recidivism rates. As John J.

DiIulio, Jr., recently wrote: “Most justice practitioners understand that they

can rarely do for their clients what parents, teachers, friends, neighbors,

clergy...or economic opportunities may

have failed to do.”14 Adopting more realistic outcome measures may make it

more possible to bridge the wide gap

between public expectations for the

justice system and what most practitioners recognize as the system’s actual

capability to control crime. By documenting what corrections programs can

accomplish, we can move toward integrating programs like work release into

a more balanced corrections strategy.

Such a strategy would successfully return

low-risk inmates to the community,

thereby making room to incarcerate the

truly violent offenders.

Notes

1. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Correctional Populations in the United States,

1992, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice

Statistics, 1995, Table 5.12a.

2. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census

of State and Federal Correctional

Facilities, Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Justice, Bureau of

Justice Statistics, 1990:1.

3. The few previous studies of work release had shown some positive results—mostly on employment rather

than recidivism. These studies relied

primarily on quasi-experimental methods that failed to control adequately

for preexisting differences between

study groups. Thus, one could not determine whether outcome differences

were due to the effect of the intervention (work release) or to characteristics

on which work release and comparison

groups differed.

4. The work release budget includes

the institution’s phase referred to as

“prerelease,” in which inmates prepare for their placement in the community work release facilities, as well

as actual placement in the community

work release site.

5. The offender can also change his

mind about participating in work release during the application process.

Of those who were denied work release

in 1989 by DOC, 30 percent were offenders being held on detainers, 17

percent were offenders with disciplinary problems, 9 percent had escape infractions, and 17 percent refused to

participate in work release.

6. Only male inmates who were

sentenced and released under the

Sentencing Reform Act (SRA) of 1981

were included in the sample. DOC estimates that about 80 percent of offenders released in 1990 were SRA offenders and 90 percent were male.

7. The recidivism predictors are nearly

identical to those identified in a national sample of released prisoners

(Beck, Allen, and Bernard Shipley,

Recidivism of Prisoners Released in

1983, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice

Statistics, 1989).

8. Simon, Senator Paul, “Wardens Call

for Smarter Sentencing, Alternatives to

Incarceration, and Prevention Programs,” U.S. Senate Press Release,

Washington D.C., December 21, 1994.

9. Maguire, Kathleen, and Ann L.

Pastore, eds., Sourcebook of Criminal

Justice Statistics 1993, Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,

Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1994.

10. Clear, Todd, and Anthony Braga,

“Community Corrections,” in Crime,

eds. James Q. Wilson and Joan

Petersilia, San Francisco, California:

ICS Press, 1995.

11. Comparison of random versus nonrandom cases on a number of background characteristics, including age,

race, current offense, length of prison

term, multiple measures of prior criminal record, and legal financial obligations revealed no statistically significant differences between the two

groups on any measure except the

number of prior arrests and the number of prior parole revocations. Of

these characteristics, nonrandom offenders had fewer prior arrests and

fewer prior parole revocations than

randomly assigned offenders.

With any random-assignment protocol,

the possibility exists that the actual

placement may be inconsistent with

the designated assignment. In the current study, several factors affected actual placement after assignment.
13

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Although experimental offenders were

to be placed in work release facilities

soon after the assignment call was

made to the researchers, in some instances offenders reached the end of

their terms before placement. The potential for changing control offender

assignments was more often related to

offender dissatisfaction with remaining

in prison rather than with being placed

in work release. Although potential

challenges to control assignments were

anticipated by RAND Corporation and

DOC staff and measures were taken to

deal with them (i.e., reminding offenders that work release is a privilege and

not a right), a few control offenders

were placed in work release when it

appeared their needs outweighed the

study assignment. When one examines

the actual placements versus those assigned for the entire study sample, 91

percent of controls remained in prison;

86 members of the control group were

placed in work release.

The study’s main analysis of outcomes

considers cases as assigned, not as actually placed (thus one sees infractions

during work release for a smaller percentage of control offenders). Although

this procedure results in diluted estimates of treatment effects, it is the recommended strategy to ensure unbiased

estimates of program impact. See Garner, Joel H., and Christy A. Visher,

“Policy Experiments Come of Age,”

NIJ Reports, Washington D.C.: U.S.

Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, September/October

1988.

12. Of the 25 characteristics on which

experimental and control offenders

were compared (see exhibit 3), one

would expect at least one comparison

to be significant by chance. Nonetheless, the three significant differences

found indicated that work releasees

might have been slightly less serious

offenders than their control group

counterparts. To the extent these characteristics are related to recidivism,

one would tend to find more positive

outcomes for the work releasees.

However, the study found that work

releasees were actually more likely to

commit infractions. To address the

concern of differences in background

characteristics on the “any arrest” outcome, a multiple logistic regression

analysis was conducted in which “any

arrest” was regressed on controls versus experimentals, age, race, high

school graduate, employed prior to

prison, dependence on cocaine or

crack, whether postrelease supervision

had been ordered, whether the inmate

was referred to the study from a

prerelease center or an institution,

current offense type, and number of

prior arrests. The results mirrored

those in exhibit 4—work releasees

were less likely, although not significantly so, to be arrested during the

followup period. In other words, when

background factors are controlled,

conclusions are not changed.

13. Charles Logan, a corrections expert, has written on such matters for

the Department of Justice and recommended that realistic goals for prison

programs should be fairly narrow,

achievable, and measurable within the

policies and programs operated by the

corrections department. He says that

prison programs should be held accountable for keeping prisoners safe,

in line (not committing crimes),

healthy, and busy, and they should try

to do all of this as efficiently as possible and without causing undue suffering. If those outcome measures are

adopted (they were recently endorsed

by the General Accounting Office),

Washington’s work release program is

certainly successful. See Logan,

Charles H., “Criminal Justice Performance Measures for Prisons,” PerforFindings and conclusions of the research reported here are those of the authors and do not

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Susan Turner, Ph.D., is a senior

researcher with the Criminal

Justice Program, RAND Corporation, and Joan Petersilia, Ph.D.,

is professor of criminology, Social Ecology Department, University of California, Irvine. This

project was conducted in collaboration with the Washington

Department of Corrections and

Pioneer Human Services. The

authors wish to thank the following individuals who assisted with

the project: Chase Riveland, Secretary, Washington Department

of Corrections; Dave Savage,

Director, Division of Community

Corrections; Peggy Smith, Ph.D.,

Planning and Research Manager;

and Gary Mulhair, President,

Pioneer Human Services. This

study was conducted under NIJ

award 90–DD–CX–0056.

NCJ 163706

The National Institute of Justice is a

component of the Office of Justice

Programs, which also includes the Bureau

of Justice Assistance, Bureau of Justice

Statistics, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for

Victims of Crime.

mance Measures for the Criminal Justice System, Washington D.C.:

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of

Justice Statistics, 1993.

14. DiIulio, John J., Jr., “Rethinking

the Criminal Justice System: Toward a

New Paradigm,” in Performance Measures for the Criminal Justice System,

Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of

Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics,

1993:1–2.
14

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Qty. Presenter Name and NCJ # Subtotal

 @ $19 

 @ $19 

 @ $19 

 @ $19 

Name Total

Address 

City State ZIP Daytime phone ( ) 

___ Payment enclosed (U.S. dollars) ___ Deduct this item from my NCJRS Deposit Account, account no. 

Charge my: ___ MasterCard ___VISA Account No. 

Exp. Date ________________________ Signature 

The Latest Criminal Justice

Videotape Series from NIJ:

Research in Progress

Learn about the latest developments in criminal justice

research from prominent criminal justice experts.

Each 60-minute tape presents a well-known scholar discussing his or her current studies and how they

relate to existing criminal justice research and includes the lecturer’s responses to audience questions. The

tapes in the series now available in VHS format are:

NCJ 152235—Alfred Blumstein, Ph.D., Professor, Carnegie Mellon University: Youth Violence, Guns, and Illicit Drug Markets.

NCJ 152236—Peter W. Greenwood, Ph.D.,

Director, Criminal Justice Research Program,

The RAND Corporation: Three Strikes, You’re

Out: Benefits and Costs of California’s New Mandatory-Sentencing Law.

NCJ 152237—Christian Pfeiffer, Ph.D., Director, Kriminologisches Forschungsinstitut

Niedersachsen: Sentencing Policy and Crime Rates

in Reunified Germany.

NCJ 152238—Arthur L. Kellermann, M.D.,

M.P.H., Director, Center for Injury Control,

and Associate Professor, Emory University: Understanding and Preventing Violence: A Public Health

Perspective.

NCJ 152692—James Inciardi, Ph.D., Director, Drug and Alcohol Center, University of

Delaware: A Corrections-Based Continuum of Effective Drug Abuse Treatment.

NCJ 153270—Adele Harrell, Ph.D., Director,

Program on Law and Behavior, The Urban Institute: Intervening with High-Risk Youth: Preliminary Findings from the Children-at-Risk Program.

NCJ 153271—Marvin Wolfgang, Ph.D., Director, Legal Studies and Criminology,

University of Pennsylvania: Crime in a Birth Cohort: A Replication in the People’s Republic of China.

NCJ 153730—Lawrence W. Sherman, Ph.D.,

Professor, University of Maryland: Reducing

Gun Violence: Community Policing Against Gun

Crime.

NCJ 153272—Cathy Spatz Widom, Ph.D.,

Professor, State University of New York–Albany: The Cycle of Violence Revisited Six Years Later.

NCJ 153273—Wesley Skogan, Ph.D., Professor, Northwestern University: Community Policing in Chicago: Fact or Fiction?

NCJ 153850—Scott H. Decker, Ph.D., Professor, University of Missouri–St. Louis, and

Susan Pennell, San Diego Association of Governments: Monitoring the Illegal Firearms Market.

NCJ 154277—Terrie Moffitt, Ph.D., Professor, University of Wisconsin: Partner Violence

Among Young Adults.

NCJ 156923—Orlando Rodriguez, Ph.D.,

Director, Hispanic Research Center, Fordham

University: The New Immigrant Hispanic Populations: Implications for Crime and Delinquency in the

Next Decade.

NCJ 156924—Robert Sampson, Ph.D., Professor, University of Chicago: Communities and

Crime: A Study in Chicago.

NCJ 156925—John Monahan, Ph.D., Professor, University of Virginia: Mental Illness and

Violent Crime.

NCJ 157643—Benjamin E. Saunders, Ph.D.,

and Dean G. Kilpatrick, Ph.D., Medical University of South Carolina: Prevalence and Consequences of Child Victimization: Preliminary Results

from the National Survey of Adolescents.

NCJ 159739—Joel H. Garner, Ph.D., Research Director, Joint Centers for Justice Studies: Use of Force By and Against the Police.

NCJ 159740—Kim English, Research Director, Colorado Division of Criminal Justice:

Managing Adult Sex Offenders in Community Settings: A Containment Approach.

NCJ 160765—Michael Tonry, Ph.D., Professor, University of Minnesota: Ethnicity, Crime,

and Immigration.

NCJ 160766—David M. Kennedy, Ph.D., Professor, Harvard University: Juvenile Gun Violence

and Gun Markets in Boston.

NCJ 161259—Robert Crutchfield, Ph.D., Professor, University of Washington: Labor Markets,

Employment, and Crime.

NCJ 161836—Geoff Alpert, Ph.D., Professor,

University of Southern California: Police in Pursuit: Policy and Practice.

To order any of these tapes, please complete and return this form with your payment to National Criminal Justice Reference

Service, Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849–6000. Call 800–851–3420, or e-mail askncjrs@ncjrs.org if you have any questions.

Please send me the following tapes:

✂
15

Selected NIJ Publications About Issues Relating R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

to Alternative Sanctions and Corrections

Listed below are some recent National

Institute of Justice publications related

to alternative sanctions and corrections. These publications are free, except as indicated, and can be obtained

from the National Criminal Justice

Reference Service: telephone 800–

851–3420, e-mail askncjrs@ncjrs.org,

or write NCJRS, Box 6000, Rockville,

MD 20849–6000.

These documents also can be viewed

or downloaded through the NCJRS

Bulletin Board System or at the Justice

Information Center World Wide Web

site, http://www.ncjrs.org, in ASCII or

graphic formats. Call NCJRS for

more information.

Please note that when free publications are out of stock, they are available as photocopies or through

interlibrary loan.

Boone, Harry N., Ph.D., and Betsy A.

Fulton, Implementing PerformanceBased Measures in Community

Corrections, Research in Brief, 1996,

NCJ 158836.

Bourque, Blair B., Roberta C. Cronin,

Daniel B. Felker, Frank R. Pearson,

Mei Han, and Sarah M. Hill, Boot

Camps for Juvenile Offenders: An

Implementation Evaluation of Three

Demonstration Programs, Research

in Brief, 1996, NCJ 157317.

Bourque, Blair B., Mei Han, and Sarah

M. Hill, An Inventory of Aftercare Provisions for 52 Boot Camp Programs,

Research Report, 1996, NCJ 157104.

Bourque, Blair B., Mei Han, and Sarah

M. Hill, A National Survey of Aftercare

Provisions for Boot Camp Graduates,

Research in Brief, 1996, NCJ 157664.

Cowles, Ernest L., Ph.D., Thomas C.

Castellano, Ph.D., with the assistance

of Laura A. Gransky, “Boot Camp”

Drug Treatment and Aftercare Interventions: An Evaluation Review,

Research Report, 1995, NCJ 153918.

Cowles, Ernest L., Ph.D., Thomas C.

Castellano, Ph.D., and Laura A.

Gransky, M.S., “Boot Camp” Drug

Treatment and Aftercare Interventions:

An Evaluation Review, Research in

Brief, 1995, NCJ 155062.

Hammett, Theodore M., Ph.D.,

Rebecca Widom, Joel Epstein, Esq.,

Michael Gross, Ph.D., Santiago Sifre,

and Tammy Enos, 1994 Update: HIV/

AIDS and STDs in Correctional Facilities, Issues and Practices, 1995, NCJ

156832.

Inciardi, Dr. James A., A CorrectionsBased Continuum of Effective Drug

Abuse Treatment, Research in Progress

Preview, 1996, FS 000145. (See page

14 for videotape available about this

research.)

Lipton, Douglas S., The Effectiveness of

Treatment for Drug Abusers Under

Criminal Justice Supervision, Research

Report, 1995, NCJ 157642.

MacKenzie, Doris L., and Eugene

Hebert, eds., Correctional Boot Camps:

A Tough Intermediate Sanction,

Research Report, 1996, NCJ 157639.

McDonald, Douglas C., Managing

Prison Health Care and Costs, Issues

and Practices, 1995, NCJ 152768.

Moses, Marilyn C., Keeping Incarcerated Mothers and Their Daughters Together: Girl Scouts Beyond Bars,

Program Focus, 1995, NCJ 156217.

Parent, Dale, Jim Byrne, Vered

Tsarfaty, Laura Valade, and Julie

Esselman, Day Reporting Centers,

Volume 1, Issues and Practices,

1995, NCJ 155060.

Parent, Dale, Jim Byrne, Vered

Tsarfaty, Laura Valade, and Julie

Esselman, Day Reporting Centers,

Volume 2, Issues and Practices,

1995, NCJ 155505.

Rubin, Paula N., and Susan W.

McCampbell, The Americans With

Disabilities Act and Criminal Justice:

Mental Disabilities and Corrections,

Research in Action, 1995, NCJ

155061.

Sexton, George E., Work in American

Prisons: Joint Ventures With the Private Sector, NIJ Program Focus, 1996,

NCJ 156215.

Tunis, Sandra, Ph.D., James Austin,

Ph.D., Mark Morris, Ph.D., Patricia

Hardyman, Ph.D., and Melissa

Bolyard, M.A., Evaluation of Drug

Treatment in Local Corrections,

Research Report, 1996, NCJ 159313.

Widom, Rebecca, and Theodore M.

Hammett, HIV/AIDS and STDs in

Juvenile Facilities, Research in Brief,

1996, NCJ 155509.

Wilcock, Karen, Theodore M.

Hammett, and Dale G. Parent, Controlling Tuberculosis in Community

Corrections, Research in Action, 1995,

NCJ 153211.
BULK RATE

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/NIJ

Permit No. G–91

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

Washington, D.C. 20531

____________________________

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Quick Access to NIJ Publication News

For news about NIJ’s most recent publications, including solicitations for grant applications,

subscribe to JUSTINFO, the bimonthly newsletter sent to you via e-mail. Here’s how:

Or check out the “What’s New” section at the Justice Information Center homepage:

http://www.ncjrs.org

■ Send an e-mail to listproc@ncjrs.org

■ Leave the subject line blank

■ Type subscribe justinfo your name

 (e.g., subscribe justinfo Jane Doe) in the body of the message