Intermediate punishment: Redistributing or extending social control?

During the past two decades, a major area of debate has been about the meaning and consequences of the community corrections movement that has now evolved into intermediate punishment. A question underlying this debate is whether or not this movement accomplishes its expressed purpose of reducing reliance on prisons by redistributing control into the community or merely extends community control without altering previous reliance on prisons. This study assesses Florida's intermediate punishment strategy of home confinement. Data from observations of program practices and interviews with home confinement officers, offenders on the program and various family members living in the home address the operational features of the program. Pre and post program statistics (1980–1987) on state population, felony convictions and forms of correctional sanctions explore the program's impact upon the state's characteristic sanctioning trends. The findings provide no support that home confinement has reduced Florida's reliance on prisons. Specifically, throughout the decade of the 1980s, and despite the operation of a home confinement program that has involved over 100,000 offenders, Florida's use of prisons experienced major increases disproportionate to the state's population, and conviction increases. The paper concludes with discussion of ironies associated with correctional reforms and related empirical and theoretical implications.