Reconciling What Works and Broken Windows: The Policy Relevance of Individual and Social Correlates to Recidivism Reduction

Abstract

Scholars and practitioners have devoted considerable attention to affirming offender rehabilitation (“what works”) and also arguing for the need to foster healthy social contexts in order to reduce recidivism (“broken windows”). It makes sense, therefore, to acknowledge the critical importance of both individual and social correlates of criminal behavior and to reconcile “what works” with “broken windows.” It is argued that the most serious policy issues facing community corrections have more to do with problems associated with organizational capital than with the state of knowledge about specific correctional paradigms.

Keywords:

• what works
• broken windows
• community corrections
• organizational capital

Notes

1. The authors held senior positions overseeing a large community corrections agency. During their tenure, significant pressure was exerted by line staff to establish fugitive squads in partnership with the U.S. Marshal. These squads also received enthusiastic support among the media and politicians. It was clear that the parole officer functions were usurped by the aura of what was perceived by staff as “valuable work”—police work.

2. The first author conducted an extensive review of the “broken windows” programs implemented in Iowa's Sixth Judicial District Department of Corrections. The review revealed that the district gives equal emphasis to numerous “what works” and “broken windows” programs.

3. The first author was a parole officer in 1976 when he was assigned to transport Robert Martinson to and from a statewide corrections conference. During approximately 90 minutes of conversation it was obvious that Martinson, like many critics of correctional quackery, abhorred what passed for “corrections” in America's prisons and jails. Martinson stated that he saw no reason why treatment could not work in correctional settings, but he had no confidence that bureaucrats and politicians would attempt to rise to the occasion on behalf of inmate populations, most of whom represent America's underclass and had no political voice.

4. The first author hosted a visit by British MP Paul Boateng in 2000. The purpose of the minister's visit was to learn more about how “broken windows” can be applied to probation. As is the case with many uninformed politicians, Minister Boateng was only interested in a superficial orientation to the model. In particular, he wanted to learn more about how “broken windows” might be used to convey a “get-tough” approach to offender supervision.

5. The authors possess a combined total of more than 40 years in community corrections and have worked, trained, or consulted in over 44 states. Our collective experience affirms, with some notable exceptions, that agency staff erroneously interprets public safety as a competing goal to offender rehabilitation.