NCJ Number
138147
Journal
Evaluation Review Volume: 15 Issue: 4 Dated: (August 1991) Pages: 471-481
Date Published
1991
Length
11 pages
Annotation
Two analyses of self-report and official data on burglars demonstrated how cost-benefit analysis can inform policymakers and determine the total costs of probation and prison.
Abstract
The analyses used information from 112 randomly selected convicted burglars sentenced in Maricopa County (Arizona) during the first 6 months of 1980. For each offender, burglary was the most serious conviction at the time of sentencing. The offenders were mainly young, male, single, unemployed high school dropouts with histories of drug abuse and prior convictions. Those with the most serious records went to prison, and those with the least serious records were placed on probation. Members of the middle group were sentenced to jail with probation. Haynes and Larson gathered self-report and official data from burglars. The results revealed that the high cost of recidivistic crime causes probation to cost more than prison. Gray and Olson analyzed the data again, arguing that researchers should measure rehabilitation, the difference between prior offenses and recidivism, rather than recidivism alone. Their analysis found that prison may result in offenders committing more costly crimes (dehabilitation) and that, as a result, prison costs more than probation. Taken together, the analyses supported a policy of selective incapacitation, but they did not show how to implement such a policy. Nevertheless, cost-benefit analysis has revealed that the frequency of high-rate recidivists and the extent of dehabilitation are critical determinants of the relative costs and benefits of prison and probation. Tables, notes, and 22 references