Intermediate sanctions in corrections

Intermediate Sanctions in Corrections

Volumn , Issue , 2004, Pages 1-230

  Caputo, Gail A ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84901518379     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Book

References (259)

1. Administrative Office of the Courts. (2001). Court and community: An information series about US probation and pretrial services-Federal corrections and supervision division, Administrative Office of the Courts, Probation Division.
2. Administrative Office of the United States Courts. (1981). Implementing community service: The referral process. Federal Probation, 53(1), 3-9.
3. Allen, G. F., & Treger, H. (1990). Community service orders in federal probation: Perceptions of probationers and host agencies. Federal Probation 54(3), 8-14.
4. Allen, G. F., & Treger, H. (1994). Fines and restitution orders: Probationers' perceptions. Federal Probation, 58(2), 34-40.
5. American Correctional Association. (n. d.). American Correctional Association (ACA) legislative position statement on community corrections and intermediate supervision. Lanham, MD: American Correctional Association. Retrieved on August 5, 2003, from http://www.aca.org/government/wp-community.pdf
6. Anderson, D. C. (1997). Sensible justice: Alternatives to prison. New York: The New Press.
7. Andrews, D. A. (1994). An overview of treatment effectiveness: Research and clinical principles (Draft). Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
8. Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R. D. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17(1), 19-52.
9. Austin, J. M., Jones, M. & Bolyard, M. (1993). The growing use of jail boot camps: The current state of the art. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
10. Austin, J., Camp-Blair, D., Camp, A., Castellano, T., Adams-Fuller, T., Jones, M., et al. (2000). Multi-Site evaluation of boot camp programs, final report. Washington, DC: National Council on Crime And Delinquency.
11. Beccaria, C. (1983). An essay on crimes and punishments. Brookline Village, MA: Branden Press Inc.
12. (Translated and reprinted from Dei delitti e delle pene, (4th ed.), 1775, London: F. Newberry).
13. Beck, A. J. & staff (1999). Correctional populations in the United States, 1996. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
14. Beck, A. J. (2000). Prison and jail inmates at midyear 1999. Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs.
15. Beck, A. J., & Harrison, P. M. (2001). Prisoners in 2000. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
16. Beck, A. J., Karberg, J. C., & Harrison, P. M. (2002). Prison and jail inmates at midyear 2001. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
17. Beck, J. L., & Klein-Saffran, J. (1990). Home confinement and the use of electronic monitoring with federal parolees. Federal Probation, 54(4), 22-33.
18. Belenko, S., Winterfield, L., Phillips, M., Grant, A., & Caligiuri, R. (1995). Estimating the displacement effects of Alternative to Incarceration Programs: Final report of the Jail Displacement Study Phase II. New York: Criminal Justice Agency.
19. Bennett, L. A. (1995). Current findings on intermediate sanctions and community corrections. Corrections Today, 57(1), 86-89.
20. Berry, B. (1985). Electronic jails: A new criminal justice concern. Justice Quarterly, 2, 1-22.
21. Bonta, J. (1997). Offender rehabilitation: From research to practice. Public Works and Government Services Canada.
22. Boone County Jail. (n. d.). Community service program. Kentucky Department of Corrections, Division of Local Facilities. Retrieved November 11, 2002, from http://www.boonecountyky.org/jail/community-service.htm
23. Bowers, D. M. (2000). Home detention systems. Corrections Today, 62(4), 102-106.
24. Bureau of Justice Assistance. (1996). How to use structured fines (Day Fines) as an intermediate sanction. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance.
25. Bureau of Justice Assistance. (1997). Improving the nation's criminal justice system: Findings and results from state and local program evaluations. Effective Programs Monograph No. 1. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance.
26. Bureau of Justice Assistance. (2000). Creating a new criminal justice system for the 21st century: Findings and results from state and local program evaluations. Effective Programs Monograph. No. 2. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance.
27. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2001). Federal criminal case processing, 2000: With trends 1982-2000. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
28. Byrne, J. M., Lurigio, A. J., & Baird, C. (1989). The effectiveness of the new intensive supervision programs. Research In Corrections, 2(2), 1-48.
29. Camp, C. G., & Camp, G. M. (2000). The corrections yearbook 2000: Adult corrections. Middletown, CT: Criminal Justice Institute.
30. Canning, K., & Harrigan, K. (2002). Violators face tough civil, criminal fines. Pollution Engineering, 32(2), 3.
31. Cappillino, C. (1993). Role of community service in reducing jail population in Ulster County. he IARCA Journal on Community Corrections, 5(5), 13-14.
32. Caputo, G. A. (2000). Why not community service? Criminal Justice Policy Review, 10(4), 503-519.
33. Caputo, G. A. (2002, November). Community service in Texas. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Chicago.
34. Caputo, G. A. (2004). Treating sticky-fingers: An evaluation of treatment and education for shoplifters. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 38(3), 49-68.
35. Caputo, G. A., Young, D., & Porter, R. (1998b). An evaluation of New York City's Alternative to Incarceration Programs: First interim report. New York: Vera Institute of Justice.
36. Caputo, G. A., Young, D., & Porter, R. (1998c). Community service for repeat misdemeanor offenders in New York City. New York: Vera Institute of Justice.
37. Carranza, E., Liverpool, N. J. O., & Rodriguez-Manzanera, L. (1994). Alternatives to imprisonment in Latin America and the Caribbean. In U. Zvekić (Ed.), Alternatives to imprisonment in comparative perspective (pp. 384-438) United National Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute. Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publisher.
38. CASES. (1994a). Research on the Court Employment Project. Review of Research. New York: Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services.
39. CASES. (1994b). Establishing empirically-based intake criteria for the Court Employment Project. Review of Research. New York: Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services.
40. Challinger, D. (1994). Alternatives to imprisonment in Australia and New Zealand. In U. Zvekić (Ed.), Alternatives to imprisonment in comparative perspective (pp. 253-266) United National Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute. Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publisher.
41. Clark, C. L., Aziz, D. W., & MacKenzie, D. L. (1994). Shock Incarceration in New York: Focus on treatment. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
42. th Ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
43. Clear, T. R., & Dammer, H. R. (2000). The offender in the community. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
44. Clear, T. R., & Hardyman, P. L. (1990). The new intensive supervision movement. Crime and Delinquency, 36(1), 42-60.
45. Cohen, M. A. (2000). Measuring the costs and benefits of crime and justice. Criminal Justice, 4, 263-315.
46. Courtright, K. E., Berg, B. L., & Mutchnick, R. J. (1997). The cost effectiveness of using house arrest with electronic monitoring for drunk drivers. Federal Probation, 61(Sept.), 19-22.
47. Courtright, K. E., Berg, B. L., & Mutchnick, R. J. (2000). Rehabilitation in the new machine? Exploring drug and alcohol use variables related to success among DUI offenders under electronic monitoring-Some preliminary outcome results. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44, 293-311.
48. Cowles, E. L., & Castellano, T. C. (1996). Substance abuse programming in adult correctional boot camps: A national overview. In D. L. MacKenzie & E. E. Hebert (Eds.), Correctional Boot Camps: A Tough Intermediate Sanction (pp. 207-232). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
49. Coyne, P. (1996). On the home stretch. New Statesman and Society, 9(Feb. 9), 30-31.
50. Craddock, A. (2000). An exploratory analysis of client outcomes, costs, and benefits of day reporting centers-Final report. Terre Haute, IN: Indiana State University, Department of Criminology.
51. Crew, R. E., & Vancore, M. (1994). Managing victim restitution in Florida: An analysis of the implementation of FS 775.089. The Justice System Journal, 17(2), 241-248.
52. Crocker, K. W. (2003). In Nashville, jail programs turn around lives. Sheriff, 55(3), 38-39, 62-63.
53. Cromwell, P. F., & Del Carmen, R. V. (1999). Community based corrections (4th Ed.). Belmont, CA: West/Wadsworth.
54. Cronin, R. C. (1994). Boot camps for adult and juvenile offenders: Overview and update. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
55. Davis, R. C., & Bannister, T. M. (1995) Improving collection of court-ordered restitution. Judicature, 79(1), 847-869.
56. Del Carmen, R. V., & Vaughn, J. B. (1986). Legal issues in the use of electronic surveillance in probation. Federal Probation, 50(2), 60-69.
57. Department of Justice, Sentencing Team, Policy Programs and Research Sector. (1994). Intermediate Sanctions in Canada. In U. Zvekić (Ed.), Alternatives to imprisonment in comparative perspective (p. 323-348) United National Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute. Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publisher.
58. Diggs, D. W., & Pieper, S. L. (1994). Using day reporting centers as an alternative to jails. Federal Probation, 58(1), 9-12.
59. Ditton, P. M., & Wilson, D. J. (1999). Truth in sentencing in state prisons. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
60. Durose, M. R., & Langan, P. A. (2001). State court sentencing of convicted felons, 1998-Statistical tables. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
61. English, K., Pullen, S., & Colling-Chadwick, S. (1996). Comparison of intensive supervision probation and community corrections clientele: Report of findings. Denver: Colorado Division of Criminal Justice. Retrieved on July 23, 2003, from http://dcj.state.co.us/ors/docs7.htm
62. Evans, D. G. (1996). Ontario changes direction. Corrections Today, 58(Feb), 30, 32.
63. Finckenauer, J. O. (1982). Scared straight ! And the panacea phenomenon. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
64. Finn, M. A., & Muirhead-Steves, S. (2002). The effectiveness of electronic monitoring with violent male parolees. Justice Quarterly, 19, 293-312.
65. Finn, P. (1998). Chicago's Safer Foundation: A road back for ex-offenders. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
66. Flowers, G. T., Carr, T. S., & Ruback, R. B. (1991). Special alternative incarceration evaluation. Atlanta: Georgia Department of Corrections.
67. Fulton, B., & Stone, S. (1995). Achieving public safety through rehabilitation and reintegration: The promise of a new ISP. In J. O. Smykla & W. L. Selke (Eds.), Intermediate sanctions: Sentencing in the 1990s (pp. 115-134). Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing Co.
68. Fulton, B., Latessa, E. J., Stichman, A., Travis, L. F., Corbett, R. P. Jr., & Harris, M. K. (1997). A review of research for practitioners. Federal Probation, 61(4), 65-75.
69. Gainey, R. R., & Payne, B. K. (2000). Understanding the experience of house arrest with electronic monitoring: An analysis of quantitative and qualitative data. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44, 84-96.
70. Gendreau, P. (1993). The principles of effective intervention with offenders. Paper presented at the International Association of Residential and Community Alternatives Conference, Philadelphia.
71. Georgia Department of Corrections (2001). Probation in the new century, FY 2001 Year End summary. Georgia Department of Corrections, Probation Division.
72. Georgia Department of Corrections. (2000). Alternatives to prison offer broader range of sanction. Georgia Department of Corrections. Retrieved November 14, 2002 from http://www.dcor.state.ga.us/PublicRelations/PressReleases/html/ 2000feb16.html.
73. Gilliard, D. K. (1999). Prison and jail inmates at midyear 1998. Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs.
74. Glaze, L. E. (2002). Probation and parole in the United States, 2001. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
75. Gordon, M. A., & Glaser, D. (1991). The use and effects of financial penalties in municipal courts. Criminology, 29(4), 651-676.
76. Gould Publications of Texas, Inc. (2002). Texas criminal law and motor vehicle handbook 2002 edition. Longwood, FL: Gould Publications of Texas, Inc.
77. Gould Publications, Inc. (2002). California penal code handbook 2002 edition. Longwood, FL: Gould Publications, Inc.
78. Gowdy, V. B. (1993). Intermediate sanctions. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
79. Gowen, D. (1995). Electronic monitoring in the southern district of Mississippi. Federal Probation, 59(1), 10-13.
80. Great Britain Home Office. (1992, June). Statistics on community service orders. Great Britain Home Office. Research and Statistics Department. United Kingdom. Retrieved November 11, 2002, from http://www.homeoffice.gov. uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb1392.pdf
81. Greek, C. E. (2002). Tracking probationers in space and time: The convergence of GIS and GPS systems. Federal Probation, 66(1), 51-53.
82. Greene, J. A. (1990). The Staten Island day fine experiment. New York: Vera Institute of Justice.
83. Greene, J. A. (1993). The day fine system: A tool for improving the use of economic sanctions. New York: Vera Institute of Justice.
84. Greenwood, P. W., with A. Abrahamse. (1982). Selective incapacitation: Report prepared for the National Institute of Justice. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
85. Haas, S., & E. J. Latessa. (1995). Intensive supervision in a rural county: Diversion and outcome. In J. O. Smykla & W. L. Selke (Eds.), Intermediate sanctions: Sentencing in the 1990s (p. 153-69). Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing Co.
86. Hanley, R. (1996, Nov. 19). Faced with prison, ex-prosecutor flees home in New Jersey. New York Times wire.
87. Harding, B. G. (2000). Directory of community-based programs for women offenders. Longmont, CO: National Institute of Corrections Information Center.
88. Harper, A. G. (1997). After more than ten years, New Jersey ISP is still thriving. The New Jersey Corrections Quarterly, 13, 2. Retrieved November 13, 2002, from http://www.corrections.com/njaca/PastQuarterlys/June97-Quarterly/ After-ten-years.htm
89. Harrison, P. M., & Karberg, J. C. (2003). Prison and jail inmates at midyear 2002. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
90. Hartland, A. T. (1998). Defining a continuum of sanctions: Some research and policy development implications. In J. Petersilia (Ed.), Community Corrections: Probation, Parole, and Intermediate Sanctions (pp. 70-79). New York: Oxford University Press.
91. Hartmann, D. J., Friday, P. C., & Minor, K. I. (1994). Residential probation: A seven-year follow-up study of halfway house discharges. Journal of Criminal Justice, 22(6), 503-515.
92. Hillsman, S. T. (1990). Fines and day fines. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice: A review of research, Vol. 12 (pp. 49-98). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
93. Hillsman, S. T., & Greene, J. A. (1987). Improving the use and administration of criminal fines: A report of the Richmond County, New York, Criminal Court Day-Fine Planning Project. New York: Vera Institute of Justice.
94. Hillsman, S. T., & Greene, J. A. (1992). The use of fines as an intermediate sanction. In J. M. Byrne, A. J. Lurigio, & J. Petersilia (Eds.), Smart sentencing: The emergence of intermediate sanctions (pp. 123-141). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
95. Hillsman, S. T., Sichel, J. L., & Mahoney, B. (1984). Fines in sentencing: A study of the use of the fine as a criminal sanction. New York: Vera Institute of Justice.
96. Hinds, L. (1999). The gross violations of human rights of the apartheid regime under international law. Rutgers Race & the Law Review, 1, 231-317.
97. Hinzan, G. (2000). The effective use of electronic monitoring. Journal of Offender Monitoring, 13(2), 12-13.
98. Immarigeon, R. (1986). Community service sentences pose problems, show potential. The National Prison Project Journal, 10, 13-15.
99. Jefferson County Community Supervision and Corrections Department. (n. d.) The Jefferson County, Texas Restitution Center. Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Jefferson County Community Supervision and Corrections Department. Retrieved November 14, 2002 from http://www.co.jefferson. tx.us/cscd- residential-services/jcrc1.htm.
100. Johnston, W. (2001). Boston area program integrates electronic monitoring with substance abuse treatment for women. Journal of Offender Monitoring, 14(3), 20-21.
101. Jones, M. (1995). Predictors of success and failure on intensive probation supervision. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 19(2), 239-254.
102. Jones, R. K., & Lacey, J. H. (1999). Evaluation of a day reporting center for repeat DWI offenders. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
103. Jones, W. L. (2000). Community supervision in Texas: Summary statistics. Austin, TX: Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Community Justice Assistance Division.
104. Joutsen, M., & Bishop, N. (1994). Noncustodial sanctions in Europe: Regional overview. In U. Zvekić (Ed.), Alternatives to imprisonment in comparative perspective (pp. 279-292) United National Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute. Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publisher.
105. Joutsen, M., & Zvekić, U. (1994). Noncustodial sanctions: Comparative overview. In U. Zvekić (Ed.), Alternatives to imprisonment in comparative perspective (pp. 1-42) United National Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute. Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publisher.
106. Keenan, J. P. (1996). Programming in Georgia's boot camps. In D. L. MacKenzie & E. E. Hebert (Eds.), Correctional boot camps: A tough intermediate sanction (pp. 93-106). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
107. Keenan, J. P., & Barry, R. (1994). Measuring the military atmosphere of boot camps. Federal Probation, 58(1), 67-71.
108. Klein-Saffran, J. (1995). Electronic monitoring vs. halfway houses: A study of federal offenders. Alternative to Incarceration, Fall, 24-28.
109. Klein-Saffran, J. (1996). Bureau of Prisons: Expanding intermediate sanctions through intensive confinement centers. In D. L. MacKenzie & E. E. Hebert (Eds.), Correctional boot camps: A tough Intermediate sanction (pp. 107-117). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
110. Knapp, K., & Burke, P. (1992). Residential community corrections facilities: Current practice and policy issues. Washington DC: U. S. Department of Justice.
111. Ko, M. (2001). If you're not in jail, you're free. Report/Newsmagazine, 28(15), 32-33.
112. Ko, M. (2002). Keeping tabs on dangerous parolees. Report/Newsmagazine, 29(3), 27.
113. Krajick, K. (1982). Community service: The work ethic approach to punishment. Corrections Magazine - New York, 8(5), 6-16.
114. Kramer, R., & Porter, R. (2000). Alternative-to-incarceration programs for felony offenders: progress report and preliminary findings from a recidivism analysis. New York: Vera Institute of Justice.
115. Langan, P. A., & Cunniff, M. A. (1992). Recidivism of felons on probation, 1986-1989. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
116. Larivee, J. J. & O'Leary, W. D. (1990). Managing the development of community corrections. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections.
117. Larivee, J. J. (1995). Day reporting in Massachusetts. In M. Tonry & K. Hamilton (Eds.), Intermediate sanctions in overcrowded times (pp. 128-130). Boston: Northeastern University Press.
118. Latessa, E. J., & Allen, H. E. (1982). Halfway houses and parole: A national assessment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 10(2), 153-163.
119. nd Ed.). Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing Company.
120. Latessa, E. J., & Travis, L. F., III (1991). Halfway house or probation: A comparison of alternative dispositions. Journal of Crime and Justice, 14(1), 53-75.
121. Latessa, E. J., & Travis, L. F., III (1992). Residential community correctional programs. In J. M. Byrne, A. J. Lurigio, & J. Petersilia (Eds.), Smart sentencing: The emergence of intermediate sanctions (pp. 116-181). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
122. Lawrence, R. (1990). Restitution as a cost-effective alternative to incarceration. In B. Galaway & J. Hudson (Eds.), Criminal justice, restitution, and reconciliation (pp. 207-216). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
123. Lee, S. (1974, January). Jackal and the Punisher. Spiderman, Volume 1, issue 140 (storyline author: Gerry Conway).
124. Lilly, J. R., & Ball, R. A. (1992). The Pride Inc., program: An evaluation of 5 years of electronic monitoring. Federal Probation, 56(4), 42-47.
125. Lilly, J. R., Ball, R. A., Curry, G. D., & McMullen, J. (1993). Electronic monitoring of the drunk driver: A seven-year study of the home confinement alternative. Crime and Delinquency, 39, 462-484.
126. Lowenkamp, C. T., & Latessa, E. J. (2002). Evaluation of Ohio's community based correctional facilities and halfway house programs, final report. Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati, Division of Criminal Justice, Center for Criminal Justice Research.
127. Lurigio, A. J., & Petersilia, J. (1992). The emergence of intensive probation supervision programs in the United States. In J. Petersilia (Ed.), Community corrections: Probation, parole, and intermediate sanctions (pp. 3-17). New York: Oxford University Press.
128. Lutze, F. E., & Brody, D. C. (1999). Mental abuse as cruel and unusual punishment: Do boot camp prisons violate the Eighth Amendment? Crime & Delinquency, 45(2), 242-255.
129. MacKenzie, D. (1997). Criminal justice and crime prevention. In L. W. Sherman, D. Gottfredson, D. MacKenzie, J. Eck, P. Reuter, & S. Bushway (Eds.), Preventing crime: What works, what doesn't, what's promising ! A report to the United States Congress (Ch. 9, pp. 1-59). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
130. MacKenzie, D. (2000). Evidence-based corrections: Identifying what works. Crime & Delinquency, 46(4), 457-471.
131. MacKenzie, D. L. (1990). Boot camp prisons: Components, evaluations, and empirical issues. Federal Probation, 54(3), 44-52.
132. MacKenzie, D. L. (1994). Results of a multisite study of boot camp prisons. Federal Probation, 58(2), 60-66.
133. MacKenzie, D. L. (1995). Boot camps-A national assessment. In M. Tonry & K. Hamilton (Eds.), Intermediate sanctions in overcrowded times (pp. 149-160). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
134. MacKenzie, D. L., & Shaw, J. W. (1993). The impact of shock incarceration on technical violations and new criminal activities. Justice Quarterly, 10(3), 463-87.
135. MacKenzie, D. L., & Brame, R. (1995). Shock incarceration and positive adjustment during community supervision. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 11(2), 111-142.
136. MacKenzie, D. L., & Parent, D. G. (1992). Boot camp prisons for young offenders. In J. M. Byrne, A. J. Lurigio, & J. Petersilia (Eds.), Smart sentencing: The emergence of intermediate sanctions (pp. 103-119). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
137. MacKenzie, D. L., & Souryal, C. (1994). Multi-site study of shock incarceration. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
138. MacKenzie, D. L., Brame, R., McDowall, D., & Souryal, C. (1995). Boot camp prisons and recidivism in eight states. Criminology, 33(3), 327-357.
139. MacKenzie, D. L., Gould, L. A., Riechers, L. M., & Shaw, J. W. (1990). Shock incarceration: Rehabilitation or retribution? Journal of Offender Counseling, Services, & Rehabilitation, 14(2), 25-40.
140. MacKenzie, D. L., Shaw, J. W., & Gowdy, V. B. (1993). An evaluation of shock incarceration in Louisiana. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
141. MacKenzie, D. L., Wilson, D. B., & Kider, S. B. (2001). Effects of correctional boot camps on offending. The Annals of the American Academy, 578, 126-43.
142. Mair, G. (1995). Day centers in England and Wales. In M. Tonry & K. Hamilton (Eds), Intermediate sanctions in overcrowded times (pp. 131-138). Boston: Northeastern University Press.
143. Majer, R. D. (1994). Community service: A good idea that works. Federal Probation, 58(2), 20-23.
144. Marciniak, L. M. (1999). The use of day reporting as an intermediate sanction: A study of offender targeting and program termination. The Prison Journal, 79(2), 205-225.
145. Marciniak, L. M. (2000). The addition of day reporting to intensive supervision probation: A comparison of recidivism rates. Federal Probation, 64(1), 34-39.
146. Martin, C., Olson, D. E., & Lurigio, A. J. (2000). An evaluation of the Cook County Sheriff's day reporting centerp program: Rearrest and reincarceration after discharge. Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority.
147. Martin, M., Choate, J., Johnson, T., & Willett, J. (1998). Community Supervision and Corrections Department Tarrant County shock incarceration facility local boot camp process evaluation. Austin, TX: Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Research, Evaluation, and Development Unit.
148. Maruschak, L. M. (1999). DWI offenders under correctional supervision. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
149. Maryland Division of Parole and Probation. (n. d.). Adult offender court-ordered community service program. State of Maryland, Division of Parole and Probation. Retrieved November 11, 2002, from http://www.dpscs. state.md.us/pnp/acocsgp.shtml
150. McBride, D., & VanderWaal, C. (1997). Day reporting centers as an alternative for drug using offenders. Journal of Drug Issues, 27(2), 379-398.
151. th Ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
152. McDevitt, J., & Miliano, R. (1992). "Day reporting centers: An innovative concept in intermediate sanctions", in J. M. Byrne, A. J. Lurigio, & J. Petersilia (Eds.), Smart sentencing: The emergence of intermediate sanctions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
153. McDonald, D. C. (1986). Punishment without walls: Community service sentences in New York City. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press
154. McDonald, D. C. (1992). Punishing labor: Unpaid community service as a criminal sentence. In J. Byrne, A. Lurigio, & J. Petersilia (Eds.), Smart sentencing: The emergence of intermediate sanctions (pp. 182-193). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
155. McEwen, T. (1995). National Assessment Program: 1994 survey results. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
156. McGarigle, B. (1997, May). Satellite tracking for house arrest. Government Technology Magazine. [Available at: http://www.govtech.net/1997/ maytoc/maytoc.phtml]
157. McIvor, G. (1990). Community service and custody in Scotland. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 29(2), 101-113.
158. McIvor, G. (1993). Community service by offenders: The Scottish experience. The IARCA Journal on Community Corrections, 5(5), 15-17.
159. Mercer, R., & Brooks, M. (1999). Judge fails test to outwit gps tracking system. Correctional compass: The official newsletter of the Florida Department of Corrections, October, p. 5.
160. Mercer, R., Brooks, M., & Bryant, P. T. (2000). Global positioning satellite system: Tracking offenders in real time. Corrections Today, 62(4), 76-80.
161. Meyer, J. & Grant, D. (2003). The courts in our criminal justice system. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
162. Meyer, J., & Jesilow, P. (1997). "Doing justice" in the people's court: Sentencing by municipal court judges. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
163. Mezghani, R. (1994). Alternatives to imprisonment in Arab countries. In U. Zvekić (Ed.), Alternatives to imprisonment in comparative perspective (pp. 69-79) United National Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute. Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publisher.
164. Michigan Department of Corrections. (n. d.). Community residential programs. Retrieved July 15, 2003 from http://www.michigan. gov/corrections/0, 1607, 7-119-1435-5035-, 00.html
165. Miller, G. (2000). A SMART solution to jail crowding: Offender reintegration without compromising community safety. Corrections Today, 62(4), 72-74.
166. Montana Department of Corrections (1998). Performance audit. Legislative Audit Division, Montana Department of Corrections.
167. Morash, M., & Rucker, L. (1990). A critical look at the idea of boot camp as a correctional reform. Crime & Delinquency, 36, 204-222.
168. Morris, N., & Tonry, M. (1990). Between prison and probation: Intermediate punishments in a rational sentencing system. New York: Oxford University Press.
169. Mullaney, F. G. (1988). Economic sanctions in community corrections. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
170. National Institute of Corrections. (2000). Promoting public safety using effective interventions with offenders. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
171. National Institute of Justice. (1996). Inventory of aftercare provisions for 53 boot camp programs. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
172. National Law Enforcement Corrections Technology Center. (1999). Keeping track of electronic monitoring. Washington, DC: National Law Enforcement Corrections Technology Center.
173. Nellis, M. (1991). The electronic monitoring of offenders in England and Wales. British Journal of Criminology, 31, 165-185.
174. New York State Department of Correctional Services & Division of Parole. (1998). The tenth annual shock legislative report 1998. Albany, NY: New York State Department of Correctional Services & Division of Parole
175. New York State Division of Probation and Correctional Alternatives (n. d.) Community service standards. New York State Division of Probation and Correctional Alternatives. Retrieved November 11, 2002, from http://dpca.state.ny.us/nysdpca/pdfs/ccstand.pdf.
176. Odekunle, E. (1994). Alternatives to imprisonment in Africa: An overview. In U. Zvekić (Ed.), Alternatives to imprisonment in comparative perspective (pp. 45-52) United National Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute. Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publisher.
177. Orchowsky, S., Lucas, J., & Bogle, T. (1995). Evaluation of the Fairfax day reporting center (FDRC), final report to the governor and the General Assembly of Virginia. Richmond, VA: Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services.
178. Outlaw, M. C., & Ruback, R. B. (1999). Predictors and outcomes of victim restitution orders. Justice Quarterly, 16(4), 847-869.
179. Papy, J. E., & Nimer, R. (1991) Electronic monitoring in Florida. Federal Probation, 55, 31-33.
180. Parent, D. (1989). Shock incarceration: An overview of existingpPrograms. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
181. Parent, D. (1990). Day reporting centers for criminal offenders: A descriptive analysis of existing programs. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
182. Parent, D. (1990b). Recovering costs through offenderfFees. Washington DC: National Institute of Justice.
183. Parent, D. G. (1995). Day reporting centers. In M. Tonry & K. Hamilton (Eds), Intermediate sanctions in overcrowded times (pp. 125-127). Boston: Northeastern University Press.
184. Parent, D. G. (1996). Boot camps and prison crowding. In D. L. MacKenzie & E. E. Hebert (Eds.), Correctional boot camps: A tough intermediate sanction (pp. 263-274). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
185. Parent, D. G., & Barnett, L. (2002). Transition from prison to community initiative. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates, Inc.
186. Parent, D. G., & Corbett, R. P., Jr. (1996). Day reporting centers: An evolving intermediate sanction. Federal Probation, 60(4), 51-54.
187. Parent, D., Byrne, J., Tsarfaty, V., Valade, L., & Esselman, J. (1995). Day reporting centers: Volume 2. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
188. Payne, B. K. & Gainey, R. R. (2000). Is good-time appropriate for offenders on electronic monitoring?: Attitudes of electronic monitoring directors. Journal of Criminal Justice, 28, 497-506.
189. Pearson, F., & Harper, A. G. (1990). Contingent intermediate sentences: New Jersey's intensive supervision program. Crime & Delinquency, 36(1), 75-86.
190. Pease, K. (1985). Community service orders. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice: An annual review of research, Volume 6 (pp. 51-94). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
191. Peters, E. M. (1995). Prison before the prison: The ancient and medieval worlds. In N. Morris & D. J. Rothman (Eds.), The Oxford history of the prison: The practice of punishment in western society (pp. 3-47).
192. Petersilia, J. (1990a). When probation becomes more dreaded than prison. Federal Probation, 54(1), 23-27.
193. Petersilia, J. (1990b). Conditions that permit intensive supervision programs to survive. Crime & Delinquency, 36(1), 126-145.
194. Petersilia, J. (1998). A crime control rationale for reinvesting in community corrections. In J. Petersilia (Ed.), Community corrections: Probation, parole, and intermediate sanctions (pp. 20-28). New York: Oxford University Press.
195. Petersilia, J. (1999). A decade of experimenting with intermediate sanctions: What have we learned? Perspectives, 23(1), 39-44.
196. Petersilia, J., & Turner, S. (1993). Evaluating intensive supervision probation/parole: Results of a nationwide experiment. National Institute of Justice Research in Brief. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
197. Petersilia, J., Turner, S., Kahan, J., & Peterson, J. (1985). Granting felons probation: Public risks and alternatives. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
198. Poole, C., & Slavick, P. (1995). Boot camps: A Washington State update and overview of national findings. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
199. Porter, R., Lee, S., & Lutz, M. (2002). Balancing punishment and treatment: Alternatives to incarceration in New York City. New York: Vera Institute of Justice.
200. President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. (1967). Task force report: The courts. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.
201. Rackmill, S. J. (1994). An analysis of home confinement as a sanction. Federal Probation, 58(1), 45-52.
202. Ramirez, R. (n. d.). Community service restitution and victim restitution report: Fiscal years 2000 and 2001 (Draft). Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Community Justice Assistance Division.
203. Renzema, M. (1992). Home confinement programs: Development, implementation, and impact. In J. M. Byrne, A. J. Lurigio, & J. Petersilia (Eds.), Smart sentencing: The emergence of intermediatesSanctions. London: Sage.
204. Renzema, M. (2000). Tracking GPS: A third look. Journal of Offender Monitoring, 13(2), 6-8, 27.
205. Renzema, M., & Skelton, D. T. (1990). Use of electronic monitoring in the United States: 1989 update. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
206. Restitution Incorporated. (n. d.) National death row inmate restitution artsShow. Chapel Hill, NC: Restitution Incorporated. Retrieved on November 14, 2002 from http://www.restitutioninc.org
207. Roberts-Van Cuick, K. (2000). Supervising the sex offender: Contact with children. Corrections Today, 62(7), 106-109.
208. Rothman, D. J. (1995). Perfecting the prison: United States, 1789-1865. In N. Morris & D. J. Rothman (Eds.), The Oxford history of the prison: The practice of punishment in western society (pp. 111-129).
209. Rowley, M. (1990). Comparison of recidivism rates for delinquents processed in a restitution-diversion program to a matched sample processed in court. In B. Galaway & J. Hudson (Eds.), Criminal justice, restitution, & reconciliation (pp. 217-225). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
210. Roy, S. (2002). Adult offenders in a day reporting center-A preliminary study. Federal Probation, 66(1), 44-50.
211. Schmidt, A. K. (1991). Electronic monitors: Realistically, what can be expected? Federal Probation, 55(2), 47-53.
212. Schneider, P. R. & Finkelstein, M. C. (1998). RESTTA. Bethesda, Maryland: Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation.
213. Schwitzgebel, R. K., Schwitzgebel, R. L., Pahnke, W. N., & Hurd, W. S. (1964). A program of research in behavioral electronics. Behavioral Science, 9, 233-238.
214. Spelman, W. (1994). Criminal incapacitation. New York: Plenum Press.
215. Stephan, J. J. (1999). State prison expenditures, 1996. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
216. Stephan, J. J. (2001). Census of Jails, 1999. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
217. Stinchcomb, J. (2002). Prisons of the mind: Lessons learned from home confinement. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 13, 463-478.
218. Stinchcomb, J. B., & Terry, W. C., III. (2001). Predicting the likelihood of rearrest among Shock Incarceration graduates: Moving beyond another nail in the boot camp coffin. Crime & Delinquency, 47(2), 221-242.
219. Sugihara, H., Horiuchi, K., Nishimura, N., Yamaguchi, A., Sato, S., Nishimura, I., et al. (1994). An overview of alternatives to imprisonment in Asia and the Pacific Region. In U. Zvekić (Ed.), Alternatives to imprisonment in comparative perspective (pp. 95-202) United National Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute. Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publisher.
220. Texas Department of Criminal Justice (1999). Electronic monitoring, Agency Brief. Austin, TX: Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Community Justice Assistance Division.
221. Tobolowsky, P. M. (1993). Restitution in the federal criminal justice system. Judicature, 77(2), 90-95.
222. Tonry, M. (1990). Stated and latent functions of ISP. Crime and Delinquency, 36(1), 174-191.
223. Tonry, M. (1996). Sentencing matters. New York: Oxford University Press.
224. Tonry, M. (1997). Intermediate sanctions in sentencing guidelines. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
225. Tonry, M., & Hamilton, K. (1995). Intermediate sanctions in overcrowdedtTimes. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
226. Tonry, M., & Lynch, M. (1996). Intermediate sanctions. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: a review of research, Vol. 20 (pp. 99-144). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
227. Turner, S., & Petersilia, J. (1992). Focusing on high-risk parolees: An experiment to reduce commitments to the Texas Department of Corrections. Research in Crime & Delinquency, 29(1), 34-61.
228. Turner, S., & Petersilia, J. (1996a). Day fines in four U. S. jurisdictions. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
229. Turner, S., & Petersilia, J. (1996b). Work release: Recidivism and corrections costs in Washington State: Research in brief. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
230. Turner, S., Petersilia, J., & Deschenes, E. P. (1992). Evaluating intensive supervision probation/parole (ISP) for drug offenders. Crime & Delinquency, 38(4), 539-556.
231. U. S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (1988). Criminal justice, new technologies, and the Constitution. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, OTA-CIT-366.
232. U. S. General Accounting Office. (1991). Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Intellectual Property and Judicial Administration, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives. Prison alternatives: Crowded federal prisons can transfer more inmates to halfway houses. Washington, DC: U. S. General Accounting Office.
233. U. S. General Accounting Office. (1993a). Report to the Chairman. Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives. Intensive probation supervision: Costsavings relative to incarceration. Washington, DC: U. S. General Accounting Office.
234. U. S. General Accounting Office. (1993b). Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives. Intensive probation supervision: Crimecontrol and cost-saving effectiveness. Washington, DC: U. S. General Accounting Office.
235. U. S. General Accounting Office. (1993c). Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives. Intensive probation supervision: Mixed effectiveness in controlling crime. Washington, DC: U. S. General Accounting Office.
236. U. S. General Accounting Office. (1993d). Prison boot camps: Short-term prison costs reduced, but long-term impact uncertain. Washington, DC: U. S. General Accounting Office.
237. U. S. General Accounting Office. (1998). Report to the chairman, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, and the chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, House Committee on the Judiciary. Fines and restitution, improvement needed in how offenders' payment schedules are determined. Washington, DC: U. S. General Accounting Office.
238. U. S. General Accounting Office. (2001). Report to congressional committees. Prisoner releases: Trends and information on reintegration programs. Washington, DC: U. S. General Accounting Office.
239. U. S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2001, January). Repeat intoxicated driver laws. Retrieved November 11, 2002, from http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/outreach/stateleg/reseciton.html
240. U. S. Sentencing Commission. (2000). Sourcebook of federal sentencing statistics. Washington, DC: U. S. Sentencing Commission.
241. Vera Institute of Justice. (1981). The New York City Community Service Sentencing Program: Development of the Bronx pilot project. New York: Vera Institute of Justice.
242. Vigorita, M. S. (2002). Fining practices in felony courts: An analysis of offender, offense and systematic factors. Corrections Compendium, 27(11), 1-27.
243. Vollum, S. & Hale, C. (2002). Electronic monitoring: A research review. Corrections Compendium, 27(7), 1-9.
244. Von Hirsch, A. (1976). Doing Justice. New York: Hill and Wang.
245. Von Hirsch, A., Wasik, M., & Greene, J. (1989). Punishments in the community and the principles of desert. Rutgers Law Journal, 20, 595-618.
246. Wagner, D., & Baird, C. (1993) Evaluation of the Florida community control program. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
247. Wheeler, G. R., Hissong, R. V., Slusher, M. P., & Macan, T. M. (1990). Economic sanctions in criminal justice: Dilemma for human service? The Justice System Journal, 14(1), 63-77.
248. Whitehead, J. T., Miller, L. S., & Myers, L. B. (1995). The diversionary effectiveness of intensive supervision and community corrections programs. In J. O. Smykla & W. L. Selke (Eds.), Intermediate sanctions: Sentencing in the 1990s (pp. 135-152). Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing Co.
249. Whitfield, D. (2001). The magic bracelet: Technology and offender supervision. Winchester, England: Waterside Press.
250. Wilkinson, R. A. (2000). The impact of community service work on Ohio state prisoners: A restorative justice perspective and overview. Corrections Management Quarterly, 4(3), 1-13.
251. Winterfield, L. A., & Hillsman, S. T. (1991). The effects of instituting means based fines in a criminal court: The Staten Island day-fine experiment. New York: Vera Institute of Justice.
252. Winterfield, L. A., & Hillsman, S. T. (1993). The Staten Island day-fines project: Research in brief. Washington DC: National Institute of Justice.
253. Winterfield, L. A., & Hillsman, S. T. (1995). The Staten Island day-fine experiment. In G. L. Mays & P. R. Gregware (Eds.), Courts and justice: A reader (pp. 436-448). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
254. Women's Prison Association & Home, Inc. (n. d.). Services. Retrieved on July 20, 2003, from http://www.wpaonline.org/WEBSITE/services.htm
255. Worzella, D. (1992). The Milwaukee municipal court day-fine project. In D. C. McDonald, J. Green, C. Worzella (Eds.), Day fines in American courts: The Staten Island and Milwaukee experiments. Issues and practices in criminal justice (pp. 61-76). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
256. Young, D., Porter, R., & Caputo, G. A. (1999). Community service for repeat misdemeanor offenders in New York City: Final report. New York: Vera Institute of Justice.
257. Young, D., Porter, R., & Caputo, G. A. (1998). Community alternatives for felony offenders: A preliminary assessment. New York: Vera Institute of Justice.
258. Zachariah, J. K. (1996). An overview of boot camp goals, components, and results. In D. L. MacKenzie & E. E. Hebert (Eds.), Correctional boot camps: A tough intermediate sanction (p. 17-38). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
259. Zimring, F. E., & Hawkins, G. (1995). Incapacitation: Penal confinement and the restraint of crime. New York: Oxford University Press.