Offenders serving community sentences are more likely to keep jobs, earn more – new research

Abstract

[From Introduction] When should offenders be sent to prison and when is it better to keep them in the community under close supervision?

New Zealand confronted that choice in 2007 when it introduced home detention, community detention and intensive supervision as alternatives to short prison terms.

At the time of the reform, New Zealand relied heavily on prison for criminal justice. The prison population stood at 189 per 100,000 people, compared to an OECD average of 136, and prisons were operating above capacity.

Two decades later, these non-custodial sentences are now a substantial part of the justice system.

In the 2024–25 financial year, the courts convicted and sentenced 50,800 people, but only about 15% received imprisonment. About one in five were sentenced to home detention, community detention or intensive supervision for offences including traffic offending, acts intended to cause injury, theft and burglary.

We conducted two studies to examine what followed when sentencing shifted away from short prison terms towards community-based sanctions, focusing on work and reoffending, respectively.

We found offenders are more likely to retain work and earn more if they stay in the community, without raising the risk of new substantive reoffending.

The budget case for community-based sentences is straightforward. A day in prison costs NZ$552, compared with $116 for home detention. But sentencing policy should not be judged purely on fiscal arithmetic.

Keeping offenders in the community may help them hold on to work and family ties, but it also raises concerns about deterrence and public safety. Understanding the trade-offs between short prison terms and community-based sanctions matters in New Zealand because most offenders now remain in the community.