NCJ Number
105978
Date Published
1987
Length
19 pages
Annotation
After defining deinstitutionalization, this paper assesses its impact in Australia by focusing on the rehabilitative and cost effectiveness of community alternatives, their 'net widening' effect, and their therapeutic coerciveness. Decriminalization is proposed as a more effective means than community alternatives for reducing prison populations.
Abstract
In its narrowest meaning, deinstitutionalization means reducing the number of sentenced persons in prison by reducing the number admitted or the length of time served. Broader views of deinstitutionalization encompass crime prevention, decriminalization, and diversion. Studies which have assessed the positive effects of community alternatives to imprisonment do not establish that they have lowered recidivism compared to institutional sentences. In Australia, the expanded use of community-based programs has not contributed to a significant decline in prison populations. Programs are serving many offenders who typically would have received a noncustodial sentence. There is no evidence that community alternatives have reduced prison costs nor that a well-developed system of community alternatives is less costly than the typical prison regime. One of the dangers of community alternatives is the expanded use of coercive therapy and services in community contexts. Reduction in prison populations is most likely to be achieved through decriminalization, including the legislative reduction of penalties. More comprehensive crime prevention programs would also help. 35 references.