Don Stemen

Policies and Imprisonment: The Impact of Structured Sentencing and Determinate Sentencing on State Incarceration Rates, 1978–2004

Research has begun to systematically assess the relationship between sentencing policies and state incarceration rates. Prior studies, however, have examined policy‐based relationships in isolation, failing to consider the impact of combinations of policies. Using a pooled time series design, this article examines interactions between structured sentencing, determinate sentencing, and state incarceration rates between 1978 and 2004. Results show that constraining release discretion through determinate sentencing matters more than constraining sentencing discretion through structured sentencing. Consistent with prior research, determinate sentencing was associated with lower incarceration rates independent of other policies. Contrary to prior research, however, the presence of presumptive sentencing guidelines was associated with lower incarceration rates only when combined with determinate sentencing. These findings suggest that while a state may effectively insulate sentencing decisions from outside social forces, if it fails to insulate release decisions from those same forces, they will continue to affect imprisonment levels.

The Impact of Drug Treatment on Recidivism Do Mandatory Programs Make a Difference? Evidence From Kansas’s Senate Bill 123

This study compares the recidivism of eligible drug possessors sentenced under Kansas’s mandatory drug treatment policy (SB 123) to those of similar offenders receiving other sentences. Using multinomial logistic regression, the authors found that participation in SB 123 was generally associated with a decrease in the likelihood of recidivism. However, models relying on matched samples of offenders generated via propensity scores showed that SB 123 did not have a significant impact on recidivism rates relative to community corrections and actually increased recidivism rates relative to court services. The authors argue that the limited effect of SB 123 on recidivism stems from the net-widening effects often encountered with mandatory sentencing policies rather than inherent problems with the delivery of treatment.

Charting the Evolution of Structure and Determinacy in State Sentencing and Corrections Policies 1970–2010:

This study examines state policies governing criminal sentencing and prison release decisions between 1970 and 2010. The goal is to create common definitions and operationalizations of policies to better specify state-level policy differences over time and across jurisdictions. Relying on an independent review of state codes, we define and catalogue key legislative initiatives adopted across the states, including presumptive sentences, sentencing guidelines, and the abolition of discretionary release. We argue that a set of common definitions and accounting is necessary for enhancing research on the content, adoption, and impact of policies and for assisting policymakers in the development of reform initiatives in the areas of sentencing and corrections.

WHEN POLICY COMES TO TOWN: DISCOURSES AND DILEMMAS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF A STATEWIDE REENTRY POLICY IN KANSAS†

In this case study, we document challenges to reform implementation posed by line staff, supervisors, and managers during a large-scale realignment of the Kansas Department of Corrections (KDOC) in which they sought to replace a traditional approach of “risk containment” focused on surveillance and incarceration with a new model of “risk reduction” focused on service delivery and reintegration. We draw on interviews, observations, and archival research to document the staffs discursive challenges to the rollout of the new policy. More specifically, we describe how varying challenges to the reforms—“denial,” “dismissal,” and “defiance”—reflect actors’ positions within the organization, the local contexts in which they operate, and more general frames of interpretation of the long-term orientation of the KDOC. We integrate these perspectives to contribute to the ongoing expansion of conventional models of penal change that highlight the role of actors and local social and institutional context as moderators of the gap between “law on the books” and “law in action.”

The Unintended Effects of Penal Reform African American Presence, Incarceration, and the Abolition of Discretionary Parole in the United States

The authors use a pooled-time series design to examine the interplay between state incarceration rates, determinate sentencing, and the size of the African American population between 1978 and 2004. Consistent with prior research, findings show that larger Black populations are associated with higher incarceration rates but that this association has weakened over time. Results also indicate that determinate sentencing is associated with lower imprisonment rates. The interaction between a higher proportion of African American residents and determinate sentencing, however, is associated with higher incarceration rates, suggesting that in states with greater minority presence the abolition of discretionary parole amplifies the impact of punitive responses linked to racial threat. It is argued that this unintended effect reflects the fact that formal constraints on release decision making reduce the ability of justice systems to administer greater punishments to specific subpopulations.

The focal concerns of sentencing and mandatory sentencing laws: circumvention in the context of mandatory probation and treatment

This study examines courtroom actors motivations for circumventing Kansas Senate Bill 123, which created a mandatory probation/treatment sentence for felony drug possession. Building on the focal concerns perspective, the study explores whether the focal concerns traditionally expressed in sentencing decisions – defendant blameworthiness and dangerousness – applied in the context of a mandatory probation/treatment law. Relying on a qualitative approach, involving semi-structured interviews with 60 judges, prosecutors, and public defenders from across Kansas, we find that courtroom actors expressed little outward concern for traditional focal concerns of defendant blameworthiness or dangerousness in circumventing the mandatory probation/treatment law. The more prevalent motivations for circumvention focused on concerns regarding offenders treatment need/amenability and the efficacy of supervision/treatment regimes. We argue that the orientation of the law – focused on increasing access to treatment and reducing substance abuse – triggered a shift in the focal concerns of sentencing away from concerns over blameworthiness/dangerousness and toward concerns over treatment need/amenability.

Reconciling the Multiple Objectives of Prison Diversion Programs for Drug Offenders: Evidence From Kansas’ Senate Bill 123:

Background: In recent years, several states have created mandatory prison-diversion programs for felony drug possessors. These programs have both individual-level goals of reducing recidivism rates and system-level goals of reducing prison populations. Objective: This study examines the individual level and system level impact of Kansas’ Senate Bill 123 (SB 123), which created mandatory probation/treatment sentences for felony drug possessors. Research Design: A nonrandomized quasi-experimental design was used to evaluate the recidivism rates of drug possessors sentenced to SB 123 relative to drug possessors sentenced to standard probation, intensive probation, or prison. Propensity score matching techniques were used to identify comparison groups. Changes in probabilities of prison sentences preimplementation and postimplementation were used to assess changes in prison admissions and prison populations. Subjects: The treatment group included all eligible drug possessors sentenced to SB 123 between November 1, 2003, and October 31, 2006. The comparison groups included all eligible drug possessors sentenced to standard probation, intensive probation, or prison during the same time period. Measures: Arrests, violations, revocation resulting in a prison sentence, and reconviction resulting in a prison sentence within 24 months of risk in the community served as the key individual-level outcome measures. Prison admissions and bed days served as the key system-level outcome measures. Results: At the individual level, SB 123 increased likelihood of recidivism compared to standard probation and had no significant effect compared to intensive probation or prison. At the system level, SB 123 diverted offenders from prison at sentencing but only marginally reduced prison admissions or saved bed days. Conclusions: Conflicting impacts are a consequence of program design—eligibility requirements diverting probation-bound offenders, mandatory sentencing requiring the same diversion sentence for all offenders, and diversion sentences longer than those imposed preimplementation. Results cast doubt on the effectiveness of mandatory diversion programs to achieve both individual-level and system-level impacts.